[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2413-H2422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS FOR WOMEN ACT OF 2002
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4069) to amend title II of the Social Security Act provide for
miscellaneous enhancements in Social Security benefits, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4069
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Social
Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS
Sec. 101. Repeal of 7-year restriction on eligibility for widow's and
widower's insurance benefits based on disability.
Sec. 102. Exemption from two-year waiting period for divorced spouse's
benefits upon other spouse's remarriage.
Sec. 103. Months ending after deceased individual's death disregarded
in applying early retirement rules with respect to
deceased individual for purposes of limitation on widow's
and widower's benefits.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Sec. 201. Exclusion from gross income for interest on overpayments of
income tax by individuals.
Sec. 202. Deposits made to suspend running of interest on potential
underpayments.
Sec. 203. Partial payment of tax liability in installment agreements.
TITLE I--BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS
SEC. 101. REPEAL OF 7-YEAR RESTRICTION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR
WIDOW'S AND WIDOWER'S INSURANCE BENEFITS BASED
ON DISABILITY.
(a) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 402(e)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ``which began
before the end of the period specified in paragraph (4)'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(F)(ii), by striking ``(I) in the
period specified in paragraph (4) and (II)'';
(C) by striking paragraph (4) and by redesignating
paragraphs (5) through (9) as paragraphs (4) through (8),
respectively; and
(D) in paragraph (4)(A)(ii) (as redesignated), by striking
``whichever'' and all that follows through ``begins'' and
inserting ``the first day of the seventeenth month before the
month in which her application is filed''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 202(e)(1)(F)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(e)(1)(F)(i)) is amended by striking ``paragraph (5)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (4)''.
(B) Section 202(e)(1)(C)(ii)(III) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(e)(2)(C)(ii)(III)) is amended by striking ``paragraph
(8)'' and inserting ``paragraph (7)''.
(C) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``paragraph (7)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (6)''.
(D) Section 226(e)(1)(A)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
426(e)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``202(e)(4),''.
(b) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(f)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ``which began
before the end of the period specified in paragraph (5)'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(F)(ii), by striking ``(I) in the
period specified in paragraph (5) and (II)'';
(C) by striking paragraph (5) and by redesignating
paragraphs (6) through (9) as paragraphs (5) through (8),
respectively; and
(D) in paragraph (5)(A)(ii) (as redesignated), by striking
``whichever'' and all that follows through ``begins'' and
inserting ``the first day of the seventeenth month before the
month in which his application is filed''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 202(f)(1)(F)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(f)(1)(F)(i)) is amended by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (5)''.
[[Page H2414]]
(B) Section 202(f)(1)(C)(ii)(III) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(f)(2)(C)(ii)(III)) is amended by striking ``paragraph
(8)'' and inserting ``paragraph (7)''.
(C) Section 226(e)(1)(A)(i) of such Act (as amended by
subsection (a)(2)) is further amended by striking
``202(f)(1)(B)(ii), and 202(f)(5)'' and inserting ``and
202(f)(1)(B)(ii)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to benefits for months after
November 2002.
SEC. 102. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR DIVORCED
SPOUSE'S BENEFITS UPON OTHER SPOUSE'S
REMARRIAGE.
(a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(5)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(5)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The criterion
for entitlement under clause (ii) shall be deemed met upon
the remarriage of the insured individual to someone other
than the applicant during the 2-year period referred to in
such clause.''.
(b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(5)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(A)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new sentence: ``The criterion for
entitlement under clause (ii) shall be deemed met upon the
remarriage of the insured individual to someone other than
the applicant during the 2-year period referred to in such
clause.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment to Exemption of Insured
Individual's Divorced Spouse From Earnings Test as Applied to
the Insured Individual.--Section 203(b)(2)(B) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 403(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``The requirement under such clause
(ii) shall be deemed met upon the remarriage of the
individual referred to in paragraph (1) to someone other than
the divorced spouse referred to in such clause during the 2-
year period referred to in such clause.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to benefits for months after
November 2002.
SEC. 103. MONTHS ENDING AFTER DECEASED INDIVIDUAL'S DEATH
DISREGARDED IN APPLYING EARLY RETIREMENT RULES
WITH RESPECT TO DECEASED INDIVIDUAL FOR
PURPOSES OF LIMITATION ON WIDOW'S AND WIDOWER'S
BENEFITS.
(a) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(2)(D)(i) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(D)(i)) is
amended by inserting after ``applicable,'' the following:
``except that, in applying paragraph (7) of subsection (q)
for purposes of this clause, any month ending with or after
the date of the death of such deceased individual shall be
deemed to be excluded under such paragraph (in addition to
months otherwise excluded under such paragraph),''.
(b) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(3)(D)(i)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(3)(D)(i)) is amended by
inserting after ``applicable,'' the following: ``except that,
in applying paragraph (7) of subsection (q) for purposes of
this clause, any month ending with or after the date of the
death of such deceased individual shall be deemed to be
excluded under such paragraph (in addition to months
otherwise excluded under such paragraph),''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to benefits for months after
November 2002.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
SEC. 201. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR INTEREST ON
OVERPAYMENTS OF INCOME TAX BY INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
inserting after section 139 the following new section:
``SEC. 139A. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR INTEREST ON
OVERPAYMENTS OF INCOME TAX BY INDIVIDUALS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, gross
income shall not include interest paid under section 6611 on
any overpayment of tax imposed by this subtitle.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in the
case of a failure to claim items resulting in the overpayment
on the original return if the Secretary determines that the
principal purpose of such failure is to take advantage of
subsection (a).
``(c) Special Rule for Determining Modified Adjusted Gross
Income.--For purposes of this title, interest not included in
gross income under subsection (a) shall not be treated as
interest which is exempt from tax for purposes of sections
32(i)(2)(B) and 6012(d) or any computation in which interest
exempt from tax under this title is added to adjusted gross
income.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 139 the
following new item:
``Sec. 139A. Exclusion from gross income for interest on overpayments
of income tax by individuals.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to interest received after December 31, 2006.
SEC. 202. DEPOSITS MADE TO SUSPEND RUNNING OF INTEREST ON
POTENTIAL UNDERPAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 67 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to interest on underpayments)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 6603. DEPOSITS MADE TO SUSPEND RUNNING OF INTEREST ON
POTENTIAL UNDERPAYMENTS, ETC.
``(a) Authority To Make Deposits Other Than As Payment of
Tax.--A taxpayer may make a cash deposit with the Secretary
which may be used by the Secretary to pay any tax imposed
under subtitle A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 which has
not been assessed at the time of the deposit. Such a deposit
shall be made in such manner as the Secretary shall
prescribe.
``(b) No Interest Imposed.--To the extent that such deposit
is used by the Secretary to pay tax, for purposes of section
6601 (relating to interest on underpayments), the tax shall
be treated as paid when the deposit is made.
``(c) Return of Deposit.--Except in a case where the
Secretary determines that collection of tax is in jeopardy,
the Secretary shall return to the taxpayer any amount of the
deposit (to the extent not used for a payment of tax) which
the taxpayer requests in writing.
``(d) Payment of Interest.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 6611 (relating
to interest on overpayments), a deposit which is returned to
a taxpayer shall be treated as a payment of tax for any
period to the extent (and only to the extent) attributable to
a disputable tax for such period. Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the rules of
section 6611(b)(2) shall apply.
``(2) Disputable tax.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`disputable tax' means the amount of tax specified at the
time of the deposit as the taxpayer's reasonable estimate of
the maximum amount of any tax attributable to disputable
items.
``(B) Safe harbor based on 30-day letter.--In the case of a
taxpayer who has been issued a 30-day letter, the maximum
amount of tax under subparagraph (A) shall not be less than
the amount of the proposed deficiency specified in such
letter.
``(3) Other definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (2)--
``(A) Disputable item.--The term `disputable item' means
any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit if the
taxpayer--
``(i) has a reasonable basis for its treatment of such
item, and
``(ii) reasonably believes that the Secretary also has a
reasonable basis for disallowing the taxpayer's treatment of
such item.
``(B) 30-day letter.--The term `30-day letter' means the
first letter of proposed deficiency which allows the taxpayer
an opportunity for administrative review in the Internal
Revenue Service Office of Appeals.
``(4) Rate of interest.--The rate of interest allowable
under this subsection shall be the Federal short-term rate
determined under section 6621(b), compounded daily.
``(e) Use of Deposits.--
``(1) Payment of tax.--Except as otherwise provided by the
taxpayer, deposits shall be treated as used for the payment
of tax in the order deposited.
``(2) Returns of deposits.--Deposits shall be treated as
returned to the taxpayer on a last-in, first-out basis.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter A of chapter 67 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 6603. Deposits made to suspend running of interest on potential
underpayments, etc.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to deposits made after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Coordination with deposits made under revenue procedure
84-58.--In the case of an amount held by the Secretary of the
Treasury or his delegate on the date of the enactment of this
Act as a deposit in the nature of a cash bond deposit
pursuant to Revenue Procedure 84-58, the date that the
taxpayer identifies such amount as a deposit made pursuant to
section 6603 of the Internal Revenue Code (as added by this
Act) shall be treated as the date such amount is deposited
for purposes of such section 6603.
SEC. 203. PARTIAL PAYMENT OF TAX LIABILITY IN INSTALLMENT
AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Section 6159(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to authorization of agreements) is amended--
(A) by striking ``satisfy liability for payment of'' and
inserting ``make payment on'', and
(B) by inserting ``full or partial'' after ``facilitate''.
(2) Section 6159(c) of such Code (relating to Secretary
required to enter into installment agreements in certain
cases) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
inserting ``full'' before ``payment''.
(b) Requirement To Review Partial Payment Agreements Every
Two Years.--Section 6159 of such Code is amended by
redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and
(f), respectively, and inserting after subsection (c) the
following new subsection:
``(d) Secretary Required To Review Installment Agreements
for Partial Collection Every Two Years.--In the case of an
agreement entered into by the Secretary under subsection (a)
for partial collection of a tax liability, the Secretary
shall review the agreement at least once every 2 years.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to agreements entered into on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
[[Page H2415]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on Mother's Day the Nation honored the love and daily
sacrifices of our mothers in raising us and unstintingly giving of
themselves both in the workforce and at home. Not just our mothers, but
all women play an essential role in advancing our Nation's economic
success and the American spirit, which is why it is so important to
take the steps we can to enhance the Social Security benefits that are
so crucial to women's retirement income security.
Many of the changes in the Social Security program over time were
specifically designed to help women, such as the addition of the wives'
and widows' benefits in 1939, mothers' benefits in 1950, divorced
women's benefits in 1965, and disabled widows' benefits in 1967. By
providing spouse and survivor benefits, lifetime inflation-adjusted
benefits, and a progressive benefit formula, Social Security helps keep
millions of women out of poverty today.
Although we face significant choices ahead in strengthening Social
Security's financing for future generations, both Republicans and
Democrats agree we must continue to enhance Social Security for women.
The Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act is a critical
first step both towards increasing women's retirement income security
and in forming the building blocks of a bipartisan dialogue on how best
to strengthen Social Security for all the American people.
H.R. 4069, as amended, takes a first step towards updating benefits
and helping women meet their needs. This legislation will not affect
Social Security's long-term financial picture, but it will make
meaningful improvements for over 12,000 women when it is implemented.
The Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act increases
benefits for certain widows, it allows more disabled widows to qualify
for disabled widow benefits, and enables certain divorced spouses to
avoid the unnecessary 2-year waiting for the benefits. These
enhancements are particularly necessary because elderly and disabled
widows and divorced spouses are more likely to live in poverty.
The subcommittee worked with the Social Security Administration to
identify these benefit enhancements, and several women and senior
organizations agreed these changes are an important start in updating
Social Security to improve women's retirement securities. AARP said,
``The bill targets improvements for widows and divorced spouses, and it
will help ensure that Social Security continues to provide valuable
economic support for older women who rely on Social Security for much
of their retirement income.'' Moreover, these provisions have solid
bipartisan support.
Furthermore, this bill continues the subcommittee's traditional
process of making sure benefits are not increased within the Social
Security System at the expense of other retirees or workers. We
insisted on that when we repealed the earnings penalty and enacted the
Ticket to Work legislation. According to the Social Security actuaries,
this bill succeeds in increasing benefits without affecting the
financial picture for the program. That means that mothers and
grandmothers can have better benefits but not at the expense of their
daughters and their granddaughters.
Some have proposed not meeting this bipartisan tradition, proposing
even more expansive increases in women's benefits, but without
addressing Social Security's financial challenges. To pay for the
benefits, the general income tax receipts are transferred into Social
Security in an amount that would be available if we increase the top
tax rate. But we have not, and that means some other family worker or
business would have to pay the bill sooner or later.
There is more we need to do for women, and we will. The President's
bipartisan commission proposed increasing widows' benefits and
guarantees that minimum-wage workers do not retire into poverty. My
legislation, the Social Security Guarantee Plus Act, saves Social
Security for 75 years and beyond; and it includes provisions to
increase widows' benefits, reduces the penalty women pay who
temporarily leave work to care for young children, expands eligibility
for young disabled widows and divorced spouses, and reduces the
government pension offset. Other Members of Congress have also
introduced plans that directly enhance women's benefits.
Many of our Nation's mothers and seniors depend upon Social Security
for much or all of their retirement income. One of the best ways to
honor the women of America is to continue our long-standing tradition
of enhancing Social Security for women and other vulnerable seniors and
sow the seeds of cooperation rather than harvest the chaff of political
acrimony. I ask that we all vote in favor of H.R. 4069.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a statement that
provides additional information about these enhancements for women and
how they were developed, as well as letters of support we received from
AARP, Independent Women's Forum, National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare, United Seniors Association, Women Impacting
Public Policy, and Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement.
Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002
purpose and summary
The Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of
2002 improves fairness and updates benefit eligibility
requirements, resulting in higher benefits and expanded
eligibility for certain elderly and disabled widows and
divorced spouses, who are among the most likely to live in
poverty.
background and need for legislation
Historically, women depend more on Social Security than do
men for their retirement income. Women represent 58 percent
of all aged Social Security beneficiaries, and approximately
71 percent of beneficiaries age 85 and older. On average,
Social Security provides about half of total income for
unmarried women (including widows) age 65 and older, and it
is the only source of retirement income for 26 percent of
unmarried elderly women. Social Security provides a crucial
safety net for women's income security--without Social
Security over half of elderly women would live in poverty.
There are several aspects of Social Security that are
particularly important to women. At birth, women are expected
to live almost 6 years longer than men. At age 65, women are
expected to live about 3 years longer than men. Social
Security protects women by providing lifetime, inflation-
adjusted benefits to workers and their survivors, which help
protect them from falling into poverty throughout their
retirement as assets are spent down, other sources of pension
income fail to keep pace with inflation, or after a spouse
dies.
In addition to living longer, women tend to earn less than
men. In 2000, the median weekly earnings for female full-time
wage and salary workers were $491, or 76% of the $646 for
their male counterparts. Social Security's progressive
benefit formula protects women by replacing a higher
percentage of earnings for low-wage workers than for high-
wage workers.
Another reason women earn less than men over their
lifetimes is time spent outside the workforce caring for
children or other family members. Of workers first receiving
benefits in 1999, women worked a median of 32 years, while
men worked a median of 44 years. The difference in time spent
in the workforce is projected to narrow in the future, but
women are still expected to work fewer years than men on
average because of family-care responsibilities. Social
Security protects women who have less labor force
participation and lower wages than their spouse by paying
spousal benefits.
Although vital to women's economic security, some aspects
of the Social Security program have not kept pace with
changes in women's participation in the workforce and trends
in marriage and child-care. For example: two-earner couples
receive lower benefits than one-earner couples with the
same total earnings and age at retirement; parents who
take time out of the workforce to care for a child receive
no credit toward retirement benefits for those years; and
a person must have been married 10 years to qualify for
benefits as a divorced spouse, even though the median
length of a marriage ending in divorce is around 7 years.
Numerous proposals have been made to update and improve
Social Security benefits for women, ranging from minor
adjustments to spouse, divorced spouse, and survivor
benefits, to credits for years spent caring for young
children.
While many proposals to strengthen Social Security for
women would reduce Social Security's long-term ability to pay
benefits and are best considered as part of comprehensive
legislation to strengthen Social Security, there are a number
of ways to remedy current inequities in benefits and
eligibility criteria with only a negligible effect on Social
Security's finances. Once implemented, H.R. 4069 would
improve benefits for
[[Page H2416]]
over 120,000 Americans according to estimates by the
Congressional Budget Office, by improving benefits for
divorced spouses and certain elderly and disabled widows.
subcommittee action
The Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security held
hearings on February 3, 1999, February 28, 2002, and March 6,
2002 devoted to the topic of the need to enhance Social
Security benefits for women. In the course of these hearings
31 witnesses provided testimony regarding the importance of
maintaining and improving Social Security benefits for women.
These hearings included testimony from the Commissioner of
Social Security, the General Accounting Office, Members of
Congress, and experts on women's issues. In addition,
witnesses at hearings on Social Security's long-term
financing challenges and options to address those challenges
have discussed the unique needs of women and the particular
importance of spouse's and survivors benefits, the
progressive benefit formula, and lifetime inflation-adjusted
benefits.
The Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social
Security worked with the Social Security Administration to
identify provisions that would help improve benefits for
women without negatively affecting the Social Security Trust
Funds. The provisions included in this bill generated strong
bipartisan support. On March 20, 2002 Mr. Shaw, on behalf of
himself and Mr. Matsui, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Collins, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. NcNulty, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Portman, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr.
Rangel introduced H.R. 4069, the Social Security Benefit
Enhancements for Women Act of 2002.
These provisions serve both to enhance women's retirement
income security and as the first steps toward a bipartisan
dialogue on ways to strengthen Social Security for all
Americans, and are supported by women's advocacy and senior's
organizations, including AARP, Independent Women's Forum,
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare,
United Seniors, Women Impacting Public Policy, and Women's
Institute for a Secure Retirement.
Explanation of Provisions and Comparison With Current Law
Section 2. Repeal of 7-year Restriction on Eligibility for Widow's and
Widower's Insurance Benefits Based on Disability
Present law
A disabled surviving spouse (including a disabled surviving
divorced spouse in some cases) of a deceased insured worker
can be paid monthly benefits if the surviving spouse is age
50-59 and becomes disabled before the latest of: Seven years
after the month the worker died; seven years after the last
month the surviving spouse was previously entitled to
benefits on the worker's earnings record as a surviving
spouse with child in care; or seven years after the month a
previous entitlement to disabled widow(er)s benefits ended
because the disability of the widow(er) ended.
Explanation of provision
This provision would eliminate this time requirement for
entitlement as a disabled surviving spouse or disabled
surviving divorced spouse.
Reason for change
The current law provision leaves gaps in the protection of
some disabled widow(er)s, because the 7-year period may not
afford all of them adequate opportunity to qualify for
disability benefits based on their own work history.
Eliminating the 7-year deadline would improve the benefit
protection for disabled widow(er)s who currently fail to meet
criteria for the current 7-year deadline, regardless of
whether they qualify for disability benefits based on their
own work history. For those widow(er)s who are able to
qualify for benefits based on their own work history, it
would improve protection by allowing them to get potentially
higher survivor benefits.
Effective date
Effective for benefits for months beginning after November
2002.
SECTION 3. Exemption from 2-year Waiting Period for Divorced Spouse's
Benefits Upon Other Spouse's Remarriage
Present law
If a worker has reached age 62 and is eligible to receive
Social Security benefits (but has not applied for them), his
or her divorced spouse can become entitled to divorced spouse
benefits based on the worker's earnings record if the
divorced spouse meets all the following conditions; The
divorced spouse is age 62 or older; the divorced spouse is
not married; the divorced spouse had been married to the
worker for at least 10 years before the date the divorce
became final; the divorced spouse has filed an application
for divorced spouse benefits; the divorced spouse is not
entitled to a retired or disabled worker benefit based on
a primary insurance amount that equals or exceeds one-half
the worker's primary insurance amount; and the divorced
spouse has been divorced from the worker for at least two
years.
In addition, if the worker is subject to the earnings test,
divorced spouse benefits would be commensurately reduced,
unless the divorced spouse meets the aforementioned
conditions.
Explanation of Provision
Under the provision, if the worker remarries someone other
than the divorced spouse, then the duration of divorce
condition is deemed to be met as the date of the remarriage.
reason for change
The 2-year waiting period was included as part of a
provision enacted in 1983 that allows divorced spouses to
collect benefits as the former spouse of a worker who is
eligible for Social Security benefits, but who has not
applied for them or is having benefits withheld because of
the earnings test. In contrast, a married spouse cannot
receive spousal benefits unless the worker is also receiving
benefits, and may have spousal benefits reduced if the worker
is subject to the earnings test. The 2-year waiting period
was included to discourage couples from divorcing in order to
circumvent restrictions on spousal benefits. However, the
waiting period is not appropriate in cases where the worker
remarries someone else.
Effective date
Effective for benefits for months beginning after November
2002.
Section 4. Months Ending After Deceased Individual's Death Disregarded
in Applying Early Retirement Rules With Respect to Deceased Individual
for Purposes of Limitation on Widow's and Widower's Benefits
Present law
Under present law, the benefits of a widow or widower are
subject to a limitation if the deceased spouse had become
entitled to retired worker benefits before attaining the
normal retirement age. This limitation, referred to as the
widow(er)'s limit, restricts the widow(er)'s benefit to the
benefit amount the deceased worker would have been receiving
if still alive (but not less than 82.5 percent of the primary
insurance amount). The intent of the widow(er)'s limit is to
maintain some degree of reduction in the benefits of the
surviving spouse as a result of the deceased worker having
become entitled to benefits before attaining the normal
retirement age. If the deceased spouse's death occurs before
the normal retirement age, no adjustment to the number of
reduction months is made in computing the widow(er)'s limit
to account for months the worker did not receive benefits due
to the worker's death. (However, such an adjustment is made
to the widow(er)'s limit to account for months the worker did
not receive benefits due to earnings exceeding the exempt
amount under the retirement earnings test.
Explanation of provision
Under this provision, if the deceased spouse's death occurs
after he or she becomes entitled to a retired worker benefit
and before he or she attains the normal retirement age, the
widow(er) limit would be recomputed at the time the deceased
spouse would have reached the normal retirement age. The
recomputation of the widow(er) limit would exclude the month
of death and all subsequent months in determining the number
of months of early retirement reduction applicable for the
benefit the decreased worker would be receiving if still
alive. This would give the widow(er) a potentially higher
benefit based on the deceased worker's earnings history.
Reason for change
In general, widow(er)'s benefits are limited to reflect the
longer period of time the worker received benefits because he
or she retired before attaining the normal retirement age.
However, the widow(er)'s benefits are limited for the rest of
his or her life, even, if the deceased spouse collected
benefits only for a few months before dying. This results in
unequal treatment of widow(er)s whose spouses received
benefits for the same amount of time before they attained the
normal retirement age, but who retired at different ages.
This provision would base the widow(er) limit on the number
of months the worker actually received benefits between the
age of retirement and the normal retirement age, rather than
the number of months between the age of retirement and the
normal retirement age, thus equalizing treatment of
widow(er)s of workers who collected benefits for the same
number of months before the normal retirement age. (Also,
this change is consistent with the way that the widow(er)'s
limit is now adjusted to exclude months before normal
retirement age in which the worker did not receive benefits
due to earnings exceeding the exempt amount under the
retirement earnings test.)
Effective date
Effective for benefits for months beginning after November
2002.
____
AARP,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2002.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Social Security, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Shaw: AARP supports H.R. 4069, the Social
Security Benefit Enhancements Act of 2002. The bill's
targeted improvements for widows and divorced spouses will
help ensure that Social Security continues to provide
valuable economic support to older women who rely on Social
Security for much of their retirement income.
The Association has long championed improved benefits for
older women that are consistent with the program's long-term
solvency needs. Over a decade ago, in hearings before this
subcommittee regarding older
[[Page H2417]]
women and Social Security, we testified in favor of
eliminating the requirement that widow/ers become disabled
within seven years after their spouse died to qualify for
disabled widows benefits. We are pleased that the change has
been included in H.R. 4069. The proposed readjustment in the
benefits of widows whose spouse retires and dies before
reaching the age for collecting full benefits and the
provision waiving the two-year waiting period for benefits
for a divorced spouse whose former mate continues working but
remarries are also long overdue.
The Social Security Benefits Enhancement Act will help
Social Security continue as the guaranteed floor of income
protection for workers and their families. The bill has
broad, bipartisan support, and we urge prompt House action.
AARP will urge the Senate to adopt similar legislation to
improve women's benefits under the current system. Enactment
of this legislation would send a strong message to the
American people that Congress can act in a bipartisan fashion
to improve the Social Security system.
Sincerely,
William D. Novelli.
____
United Seniors Association--New Social Security Legislation a ``Real
Winner for Women''
Washington, DC.--United Seniors Association Chairman and
Chief Executive Charles W. Jarvis wholeheartedly endorsed the
Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act, H.R.
4069, recently introduced by Congressman Clay Shaw, the
chairman of the House Ways & Means Social Security
Subcommittee.
``This bill is a real winner for Senior women. It shows
Chairman Clay Shaw's dynamic leadership in the House on
Senior issues,'' said Mr. Jarvis. ``It will lift unnecessary
burdens that women suffer under during their retirement
years. It will also help women nationwide without negatively
affecting the Social Security Trust Fund and the future
financial stability of the Social Security system.''
United Seniors Association member Anna Janis of Colorado
testified February 28th before Chairman Shaw's Subcommittee
hearing on ``Women and Social Security''. Chairman Shaw's
legislation is the direct result of those successful
hearings. H.R. 4069 improves fairness and eligibility
requirements for women by: Increasing the unfair benefit
limit on widows whose spouses both retire and die before the
full retirement age; updating the eligibility requirements
for disabled widows to ensure consistency with earnings
requirements in current law; eliminating a needless two-year
wait for some divorced spouses to receive benefits.
``We're pleased that United Seniors Association and our
Grassroots Leader, Anna Janis, could help in the development
of these improvements to Social Security,'' continued Mr.
Jarvis. ``Chairman Shaw has demonstrated his dedication to
getting practical help for seniors in his District and around
the Nation. H.R. 4069 is clearly a real winner for many
senior women who struggle every day now just to make ends
meet.''
____
National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare,
Washington, DC, May 6, 2002.
Hon. Clay Shaw,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways
and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the millions of members and
supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare, I wish to express our support for the
three provisions contained in your legislation, H.R. 4069 the
Social Security Benefit Enhancements of Women's Act.
We understand that H.R. 4069 would improve benefits for
widows of early retirees who die before reaching the Normal
Retirement Age by repealing the current provision that
subjects the widow's benefit to the early retirement penalty.
Your bill would also repeal the 7-year period of
eligibility for disabled widows who are at least 50 but not
yet 60. Under a current law a widow must be at least 60 years
old to collect widows benefits. However if she is at least 50
she can collect benefits as a disabled widow provided that
she became disabled within 7 years of her spouse's death.
Finally H.R. 4069 would eliminate the requirement that a
divorce must have been in place for two years for the
divorced spouse who is at least 62 to collect full spousal
benefits, whether or not the working spouse is collecting
benefits or is affected by the earnings limit.
Over 100,000 women will benefit from these three important
improvements. We sincerely hope these are the beginning steps
in efforts to rectify benefit inequities affecting all women.
For those it does help the improvements are most welcome.
We appreciate your leadership on this issue. We urge all
members to vote in support of H.R. 4069.
Cordially,
Barbara Kennelly,
President and CEO.
____
Women's Institute for a
Secure Retirement,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2002.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Chair,
Hon. Robert T. Matsui, Rnk. Mem.,
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Social Security,
Committee on Ways and Means, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Shaw and Matsui: The Women's Institute
for a Secure Retirement (WISER) is a non-profit organization
that seeks to ensure that poverty among older women will be
reduced by improving the opportunities for women to secure
retirement benefits. WISER works with community based
organizations, advocates and policymakers to provide a key
link between federal policy and individual women.
We are gratified that you are introducing the Social
Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002 during
this session to improve benefits for elderly women. While the
provisions of H.R. 4069 are modest, the 120,000 older women
who will become eligible for benefits or receive higher
benefits are the women who are the most likely to live in
poverty--widows, disabled widows and divorced women.
Poverty among the elderly has greatly declined over the
last two decades, but older women living alone are
particularly at risk. Today, nearly 60 percent of older women
in America are single: 45.3 percent are widowed and 7 percent
are divorced. In contrast, only 26 percent of elderly men are
unmarried.
We are heartened that the introduction of H.R. 4069 may be
the first step toward enhancing Social Security benefits to
ensure the long-term economic security of American women. We
urge your colleagues to support this bill to improve Social
Security benefits for older widows, disabled widows and
divorced spouses.
Sincerely,
Cindy Hounsell,
Executive Director.
____
Women Impacting Public Policy,
Oklahoma City, OK, April 19, 2002.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
House of Representatives, Chairman, Subcommittee on Social
Security, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shaw: We are writing to inform you that the
more than 250,000 members of Women Impacting Public Policy
(WIPP) support H.R. 4069, The Social Security Benefit
Enhancements for Women Act of 2002.
H.R. 4069 addresses several key issues that have long been
of major concern to WIPP members: Increasing the unfair
benefit limits on widows whose spouses both retire and die
before the full retirement age; updates eligibility
requirements for disabled widows to ensure consistency with
earnings requirements in current law and; eliminates a
needless two-year wait for some divorced spouses to receive
benefits.
WIPP member Niesha Wolfe, a CPA based in Clarkesville,
Tennessee, provided compelling testimony before your
committee in February on these issues and others related to
the unfair Social Security benefits women have been subject
to for years.
WIPP, a national bi-partisan public policy organization,
appreciates your efforts and fully supports H.R. 4069.
Regards,
Terry Neese,
President.
Barbara Kasoff,
Vice President.
____
Independent Women's Forum,
Arlington, VA, May 6, 2002.
Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on
Social Security, Rayburn House Office Building, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Shaw: The Independent Women's Forum
strongly believes in comprehensive reform to strengthen our
Social Security system and to make safe the retirement of
America's working women and men.
In February, I had the opportunity to appear before you and
the House Subcommittee on Social Security to affirm the need
for overall reform and to discuss some current inequities in
the system. I specifically pointed out that women are
financially disadvantaged under the current Social Security
system. Women who interrupt their careers for family
obligations, women who earn more than their husbands, and
widows of wage earners fall into these disadvantaged
categories.
You are attempting to correct inequities toward women
through the introduction of H.R. 4069, the Social Security
Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002. We commend you,
Mr. Chairman, for your recognition of these and other
problems; and we hope that your leadership will show the way
to a newly reformed and significantly strengthened Social
Security system.
Sincerely,
Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer,
President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from the
State of Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security
of the Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing forth this bill; and I
appreciate the fact that he has taken the opportunity to do so. I think
it is a step in the right direction.
[[Page H2418]]
Obviously, the bill before us today is a good piece of legislation.
It will, in fact, increase benefits for 120,000 additional widows,
basically widows in which the other spouse, the spouse that passed
away, took early retirement. It deals with widows who have become
disabled. It obviously deals with widows that were divorced in terms of
shortening the time in which they may be able to collect benefits. So
this is a good piece of legislation.
Obviously, we can do more; and I introduced a bill 2 weeks ago that
would actually provide greater benefits. Instead of 120,000 widows, our
bill would in fact cover and increase benefits for 4.7 million
additional widows by guaranteeing these widows a 75 percent benefit of
what they previously had when both spouses were alive.
Right now, under the Social Security Act, widows receive only about
50 to 65 percent of what they received when the other spouse was still
alive. We all know from studies that when one spouse dies, even though
the income goes down, the day-to-day fixed costs, like rent, like house
payments, like food, remain very high. In fact, we estimate that the
average cost is about 80 percent of what they expended prior, when they
were both living.
So when one spouse dies, it does not drop to 50 percent, it only
drops down by 20 percent. So 80 percent of the expenditures still
exist. Our bill would basically give every widow in America at least 75
percent of what both spouses had before one of the spouses passed away.
So this is a guaranteed benefit.
This bill that we would like to offer today as an amendment, as I
said, would take care of 4.7 million widows instead of 120,000.
Unfortunately, because of the way the situation has been set up, this
being a suspension calendar, we cannot offer that amendment.
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, I did offer it in subcommittee. It failed on a partisan
vote. Five Democrats voted for it; seven Republicans voted against it.
It was never taken to the full committee, so we could not bring it
there for a vote; and now we are left without an opportunity to bring
it again for a vote. It is unfortunate.
The bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) does move us in the
right direction. It picks up 120,000 widows and increases their
benefits, so we are all going to support it. But by the same token, I
wish we would have had an opportunity to vote on the bill that I had
introduced.
The bill that I introduced is being supported by the National Council
of Women's Organization, an umbrella group of 150 women's
organizations, the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social
Security and Medicare, and the National Women's Legal Consortium. All
of these groups support our legislation.
If I may just conclude, one of the problems that I have, I might make
this observation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) raised his
privatization legislation. He says that he has embodied the terms of
his legislation in that bill. I have to say that one of the concerns
that I have and the reason we should pass the bill that takes care of
4.7 million widows in America today is once we move down the road to
privatization after the November election, we are going to be cutting
benefits. The gentleman's bill will cost over the next 20 years $8
trillion in general fund monies going into the Social Security system.
We do not have that. We do not have even a trillion dollars in general
fund money available. How are we going to come up with $8 trillion in
general fund money? That being the case, there is no question. We are
going to be cutting Social Security benefits if we adopt a bill like
the gentleman's or adopt one of the three President's bills that he
came up with during the commission discussion.
As a result of that, we need to take care of these widows today. We
will not take care of them when we do Social Security reform if in fact
we move as the President wants to move in the direction of
privatization of Social Security. That will not take care of these
widows. As a matter of fact, it will result in significant massive
benefit cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters in support of my
legislation.
National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare,
Washington, DC, May 6, 2002.
Hon. Robert Matsui,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Matsui: On behalf of the millions of
members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare, I wish to express our support
for the provisions contained in your legislation, The Social
Security Widow's Benefits Guarantee Act.
We are pleased that your legislation would increase the
current benefit for surviving spouses to 75 percent of the
combined benefit received by two spouses when both were
living. Under current law, widows are effectively limited to
50-67 percent of what the couple had been receiving jointly.
This change would have a dramatic positive impact on benefits
for as many as 5 million Americans who are overwhelmingly
women. As you know, four out of ten older women rely on
Social Security for over 90 percent of their income.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look
forward to working with you to advance this legislation in
the 107th Congress.
Cordially,
Barbara Kennelly,
President and CEO.
____
NWLC Urges Support for Increases in Women's Social Security Benefits
(Washington, D.C.) The National Women's Law Center praised
a bill introduced by Congressman Robert T. Matsui today to
improve Social Security benefits for widows and widowers. The
proposal, which draws upon NWLC recommendations to Congress,
would increase benefits for surviving spouses and reduce
poverty among widows, the largest group of poor elderly
women.
``The bill introduced by Congressman Matsui would
strengthen and improve Social Security for women. These
improvements could be funded through savings that would
result from freezing just one of the future tax cuts
scheduled for the wealthiest Americans. The issue is one of
priorities: to help elderly widows or give more tax breaks to
millionaires. As Mother's Day approaches, we hope that
members of Congress will think about the choices they are
making,'' said Joan Entmacher, NWLC Vice President and
Director of Family Economic Security.
Matsui's bill would increase Social Security benefits for
surviving spouses to 75 percent of the couple's prior
combined benefit. Currently, widows and widowers receive a
benefit equal to 100 percent of the late spouse's benefit (if
that is higher than their own benefit), which amounts to
between 50 and 67 percent of the couple's prior combined
benefit. The increase in survivor benefits would be capped to
target those most in need, and is estimated to help about
four to five million widows and widowers. The bill would
finance the improvements with general revenue transfers.
Savings from not implementing future cuts in the top income
tax rate would fully pay for these improvements. The top rate
affects fewer than one percent of taxpayers, those with
average incomes of $1 million a year. The median income of
widows and other non-married women 65 and older is about
$12,000 per year.
In addition to the increase in survivor benefits, the bill
includes three much smaller benefit improvements to help
certain disabled and elderly widows and divorced spouses.
These smaller reforms are also included in a bill introduced
in March by Congressmen Clay Shaw and Robert Matsui with
bipartisan support.
``Poverty among the elderly is overwhelmingly a women's
problem, and a majority of poor elderly women are widows.
Increasing Social Security survivor benefits would
significantly help this large and economically vulnerable
group of women,'' said Entmacher.
____
Alliance for
Retired Americans,
Washington, DC, May 7, 2002.
Hon. Robert Matsui,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Matsui: The Alliance for Retired
Americans supports your legislation, the Social Security
Widow's Benefit Guarantee Act.
Your legislation will correct the inequities that millions
of Americans who have lost their spouses now face under the
Social Security system. Nearly 5 million American widows and
widowers currently live in poverty. This is a national
scandal that must be corrected. By adjusting the Social
Security benefit rates that widows and widowers will receive,
your legislation will directly improve the quality of life
for millions of older Americans.
The Alliance for Retired Americans stands ready to work
with you so that this legislation can become law as quickly
as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Edward F. Coyle,
Executive Director.
____
Leading Women's Groups Support the ``Widow's Social Security Benefit
Guarantee Act of 2002''
[Washington, DC, May 7, 2001].--The National Council of
Women's Organizations (NCWO), the oldest and largest umbrella
coalition of the nation's 150 major women's groups, announces
its support for legislation
[[Page H2419]]
to strengthen Social Security for widows. The important bill
is being introduced today by Congressman Robert T. Matsui (D-
CA), Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Social
Security Subcommittee. The Matsui bill will improve
survivor's benefits (most often for widows who outlive their
husbands) by increasing benefits to 75 percent of what the
couple had been receiving prior to the spouse's death.
Raising this limit from the current 50-67 percent will aid an
estimated five million elderly survivors.
``Without Social Security, over half of elderly women would
be poor'' said Heidi Hartmann, Ph.D., Chair of NCWO's Social
Security Task Force. ``NCWO has long supported Social
Security benefit improvements to ensure that our nation's
most vulnerable individuals are secure in their senior years.
The Matsui bill is an important first step.''
In addition, the bill includes provisions that eliminate
the 7-year deadline for a surviving spouse or surviving
divorced spouse to qualify for benefits on the basis of
disability. It also treats the months the retired worker was
deceased prior to the normal retirement age the same as
months benefits were withheld or reduced because of the
retirement earnings test for purposes of adjusting the
limitation on widows and widowers benefits. Finally, it
waives the two-year duration of divorce requirements if
worker remarries during that time. These provisions will help
120,000 people.
____
Statement by AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney in Support of the Social
Security Widow's Benefit Guarantee Act of 2002, May 7, 2002
One out of every seven elderly widows in this country lives
in poverty, in spite of Social Security. These are women who
worked their whole lives supporting their families in paid
and unpaid work, raising children and grandchildren and
caring for loved ones. Shortchanging widows is not consistent
with the fundamental purposes of Social Security, and it is
high time we fix the problem.
We strongly support the Social Security Widow's Benefit
Guarantee Act introduced by Representative Matsui today. His
bill would address the critical needs of these women. Most
importantly, it increases the widow benefits under Social
Security to 75 percent of what a couple's total benefit is
before a husband dies, up to $1,000 per month. Under current
law, some widows get as little as half of the couple's
benefit and none get more than two-thirds of the combined
benefit. Rep. Matsui's bill addresses this shortfall in
Social Security by increasing benefits for approximately 5
million elderly.
Congress could more than pay for these new protections by
capping future income tax cuts for the highest income
earners. For example, freezing the top federal income tax
rate at 38.6 percent would be enough to provide increased
benefits for widows. Under the terms of last year's tax cut
legislation, the top income tax rate was lowered from 39.6
percent and is scheduled to fall farther to 35 percent by
2006. This part of the Bush tax cut benefits only the
wealthiest individuals, affecting just the top 0.6 percent of
taxpayers. They make, on average, more than $1 million a
year. That's more than 133 times a poverty-level income for
an elderly widow.
With Representative Matsui's bill, Congress has a chance to
get its values straight. American voters don't want more tax
cuts for millionaires--such as the Republican leadership in
the House pushed through last month--and they don't want
politicians to gamble with their retirement security--such as
the Administration would do by draining trillions of dollars
out of Social Security to pay for privatization. Congress
should do the right thing, and support the Social Security
Widow's Benefit Guarantee Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has a copy of my bill. The gentleman has
critiqued my bill. The gentleman has been asked to give constructive
comment to my bill. Now what we are talking about is not the bill
before this committee, but when we start hearing the word
privatization, the gentleman knows full well there are those in this
House that will abuse the word privatization. Privatization is simply
defined as taking something run by the government and turn it over to
the private sector.
The gentleman from California knows full well that my Social Security
reform bill leaves the Social Security system totally intact. We take
not one dime out of the Social Security trust fund or the payroll
taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, so there is no misconception here,
that the Social Security Administration under two Presidents, a
Democrat and a Republican, estimate that by doing nothing, the cost of
doing nothing which is the only bill that I have heard coming from the
other side to save Social Security, is going to cost $27 trillion over
75 years. Whereas the Social Security Administration, assuming that we
borrow all of the money necessary to make up the shortfall in Social
Security under my particular bill, that it will all be paid back and
over that 75 years will create a $1 trillion surplus. Which does the
gentleman want? It is time that we work together.
There are those in this body that absolutely shamelessly use the word
privatization when we are not going to privatize Social Security. Mr.
Speaker, as long as I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Social
Security, it is not going to be privatized; but we are desperately
looking for some assistance from other side of the aisle. We need
constructive engagement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and thank him for his leadership in bringing this bill to the
floor today. I also thank the ranking member for supporting this bill.
We recognize this is a first step, and it is a good first step.
I rise in support of H.R. 4069, the Social Security Benefit
Enhancements for Women Act of 2002. This bill makes commonsense
corrections to Social Security law that will benefit widows, disabled
widows, and divorced spouses. Social Security has been one of our
Nation's greatest success stories, and particularly so for women. Women
make up roughly half of America's population, yet they account for more
than 60 percent of the Social Security beneficiaries. Three-quarters of
the unmarried and widowed elderly women rely on Social Security for
more than half of their income. This legislation will help. The annual
cost-of-living adjustment often does not amount to a great deal of
money per recipient. However, it is often a crucial sum for seniors
trying to keep up with escalating costs, particularly medical ones.
Once implemented, this bill will help over 120,000 women. This may
not sound like a large number, but the bill is going to touch the lives
of more than 275 people in each of our 435 congressional districts.
Even if it helps one, that is great. This will help 120,000-plus.
Social Security must be strengthened for the future. It must be done in
a bipartisan fashion, and passage of legislation of shared concern like
this bill is a very good place to start.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the bill the gentleman has is a privatization bill. The
gentleman can call it anything he wishes, but it is a privatization
bill.
Dr. Peter Orszag, a professor at the University of California
Berkeley, currently at the Brookings Institute, has studied the
gentleman's bill, the DeMint-Armey bill and the three proposals
presented by the President through his commission; he said all of them
are privatization bills.
What the bill of the gentleman from Florida does, it deals with
arbitrage. Money is borrowed at 6 percent, and then is lent out at 10
percent. We all know arbitrage is a huge risk, and it could blow up.
Once Americans have these privatization accounts, then there is a claw
back. When they are ready to retire, they have to give 95 percent of
the money that is accumulated to put back into the Social Security
Administration. If in fact the arbitrage falls apart, the money will
not be there. It is jeopardizing the Social Security system. In
addition, it is a private account that is being set up that affects the
Social Security benefits. So it is a privatization plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of improving
Social Security benefits for women, all women in this country. That is
one of the reasons why I support the legislation today of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Shaw). But we should be clear, this modest
improvement in Social Security benefits for women should be considered
nothing more than a downpayment of what we must do to help women who
for years have worked very hard in and out of the home, in and out of
the office, in and out of all of the workplaces of America, the chance
to receive their fair share of retirement security.
Mr. Speaker, four out of every 10 women who are retired today rely on
Social Security for 90 percent of all of their income. And 75 percent
of all
[[Page H2420]]
women rely on Social Security for half of all of their income. Clearly
Social Security is extremely important for women, more so than it is
for men.
While we have done a tremendous job of decreasing poverty among our
elderly, over the last 30 years or so we have seen a decrease of some
29 percent of poverty within the senior ranks in our country to
something around 8.5 percent today of our seniors in poverty. When we
look at widows, we find that their poverty rates are twice as much for
the average senior in this country. We must do more.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I stand proudly to support the legislation
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), H.R. 4671, which would
give women, widows, widowers their fair share within Social Security
retirement benefits. What the Matsui bill does, which the Shaw bill
does not do, it covers in a meaningful way Americans who deserve to
have a meaningful opportunity to retire in comfort and security; 5
million people would be affected by the Matsui bill. We have about
120,000 women who would be helped by the Shaw bill. We should do it,
but we have millions more who are out there waiting to receive their
due. It is time for us to do this.
We cannot do retirement security on the cheap. We cannot continue to
say that we will place Social Security first among all our priorities
and not do it the right way. We cannot continue to say that we believe
men and women should be able to retire in safety and security without
doing it the right way. It is time for us to do this. We should pass
this legislation. It is not enough. We should have had hearings on the
Matsui legislation because, quite honestly, the American people deserve
to know that we will protect our men and women in their retirement.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say I do not know
that anybody is not going to support this piece of legislation before
us. What I do want to point out is this is a huge issue for a lot of
people in and around this country. So often I have women who come to me
because generally women live longer, who come to me and say my husband
died, prescription drugs are going up. Everything is happening around
me; and quite frankly, I cannot live on my Social Security alone. And I
am not getting anything from my husband's Social Security.
The fact of the matter is, what concerns me most about this
legislation today is there is going to be somebody who writes the
story, and somebody is going to believe they are going to get something
new or better than what they have gotten. The fact of the matter is,
based on what I am seeing here, these are some very technical changes,
changes that are not going to affect the same people that I think the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and others, including myself,
have in fact sponsored. We could actually be helping about 5 million
elderly widows instead of a small portion.
I might just say it is my understanding that, and it is technical, it
would eliminate the 7-year deadline for the onset of the disability in
order to be eligible for benefits as a disabled widow or widower. The
proposal would allow divorced spouses benefits to be paid before the 2-
year period has elapsed if the former spouse has remarried, and the
proposal would limit the widow's actual reduction to the number of
months the worker usually received in benefits.
That is not the 5 million elderly widows and widowers that need the
help. That is a very small amount of folks in this country. I think
that is the real debate that we need to be having here and hopefully
will happen in this committee. We have two very reasonable Members, but
we have not had the opportunity to have the Matsui bill be heard.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing trends for women. The last 7 years of
life, we live longer, we have personal health care needs, we are
hearing in the committee about the overpricing of medicines, all of
those things that they no longer can pay.
{time} 1645
There are also more women in nursing homes. Certainly this would help
defray some of their cost. I just think that while we will support this
today, what I would encourage and hope is that the committee, the
Subcommittee on Social Security, will not leave it just at what I
consider to be technical changes but will look at the wide picture, the
picture of widows and widowers out there that really do need our
assistance. Quite frankly, these are the folks that have been coming to
us day in and day out explaining the concerns and needs that they have.
I just do not think this is going to do that.
I do want to say that I hope we, in fact, will have an opportunity to
discuss this, and certainly with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) and others, as to the importance of this whole issue on
disability and Social Security and widowers' benefits.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. I thank my good friend and colleague from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4069, the Social
Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act. This bill will help more
than 120,000 Social Security beneficiaries. We wish it could be more,
something like 4.7 million beneficiaries. It will provide enhanced
Social Security benefits to women by increasing benefits for certain
widows, by permitting more disabled widows to qualify for disabled
widow benefits, and by allowing certain divorced spouses to receive
their benefits sooner.
As has been indicated by my good friend from California, the Social
Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act addresses the challenges
women, and especially widows, face when it comes to Social Security.
Women on average earn less than men throughout their lives and
therefore have less to live on during their retirement years. The vast
majority of Social Security beneficiaries are women. Women make up some
60 percent of all Social Security recipients over the age of 65 and
roughly 72 percent of all beneficiaries over the age of 85.
Additionally, women lose an average of 14 years of Social Security
earnings because of time out of the workforce spent to raise children
or to care for an ailing parent or an ailing spouse. Further, women
generally have a higher incidence of part-time employment and therefore
have less of an opportunity to save for retirement.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the cornerstone of our Nation's
retirement system. This is especially true for women. Without these
benefits, nearly three-fifths of women over the age of 75 in this
country would live in poverty. If we privatized Social Security, we
would undermine many of the benefits that women receive through the
current system. A plan to privatize Social Security is a plan that will
jeopardize women's Social Security benefits and will jeopardize the
entire Social Security system.
Women live on average 6 to 8 years longer than men and therefore must
make retirement savings stretch over longer periods of time. Women
depend considerably upon Social Security's progressive, lifelong,
inflation-indexed benefits. There is no plan to privatize Social
Security that will safeguard account balances from erosion due to
inflation. Privatizing Social Security would be a mistake for all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the solvency of our Social Security system is at risk.
More than 32 million Americans collect benefits from Social Security
today.
Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month. It is critically important
for us to honor our older Americans and shore up Social Security.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I support the gentleman from Florida's
legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation. It will take
care of 120,000 additional women and I think that is a step in the
right direction. I only wish we had an opportunity to vote on my bill,
as a number of speakers on my side of the aisle have indicated they
would have liked that opportunity, because we think it is important to
deal with this issue today given the fact that there is a lot of
uncertainty out there of what might happen in 2003 after the election.
The President's people, Mr. Rove and others, have said that they do
not want to bring this issue up this year, they want to bring it up in
2003 after the
[[Page H2421]]
election in terms of the whole issue of privatization. The real danger
I see there is that once we embark upon that direction we are not going
to be able to take care of these 4.7 million widows that my bill would
take care of because we are going to be cutting benefits. I do not
think there is any question about that.
The President's bill, for example, has three alternatives. One of the
alternatives would require $6 trillion of general fund moneys, which we
do not have at this time. In addition, it would have 46 percent cuts in
benefits over the next number of years in terms of recipients of Social
Security. Each one of his proposals either requires an infusion of
general fund moneys or cuts in benefits. The gentleman from Florida's
bill is a riverboat gamble essentially.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue,
for calling to our attention the distinction between the bill before us
today, which we will all support, and what we could really be doing for
widows in our country who are on Social Security.
Social Security is one of America's proudest achievements in social
policy. No other program has brought so many people out of poverty,
enabling millions to live with dignity. For millions of senior
citizens, it is a lifeline. Unfortunately, the lifeline is severed for
many when a spouse dies. H.R. 4069 takes a few small steps to improve
benefits for widows, but its remedies leave millions of widows behind.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has introduced legislation
that comprehensively addresses this need. However, the Republican
leadership did not follow the regular committee process and Democrats
had no opportunity to strengthen the provisions of this bill on the
floor today.
Given what the Republican budget does to the Social Security surplus,
the small steps forward being proposed today are even less adequate.
Both parties promised that protecting Social Security would be the top
priority. Yet the Republicans' budget breaks that promise by spending
$1 trillion of the Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. The
Republican plan to privatize Social Security would cost another $1
trillion over the next decade.
Democrats have asked repeatedly for the opportunity to debate the
Republican privatization plan and last month on this floor, it does not
even seem like it has been last month, it seems like just a couple of
weeks ago, every Democrat voted for a motion to say that the Republican
proposal to make the tax cuts permanent could not proceed unless the
Congressional Budget Office said that those tax cuts would not raid the
Social Security Trust Fund. Every Democrat voted for that. Every
Republican voted against it. The looming retirement of the baby boom
generation means that we cannot irresponsibly push this issue aside for
another day.
This debate, like all debates on Social Security, has a
disproportionate impact on women, who live 6 to 8 years longer than men
on average and constitute 60 percent of Social Security recipients.
Women continue to earn less on average than men and are less likely to
have an employer-sponsored pension plan. Thus, the benefit structure of
Social Security, which partially corrects disparities in income, is
particularly important for women. Women are also more likely to work
part-time and take time out of the workforce, 14 years on average, to
raise their children and to care for ailing parents or spouses. As a
result, they have less time to save for retirement.
Social Security must be protected for the elderly women who rely on
it for their financial survival, and the concerns of women must be a
priority in the ongoing discussion about how to preserve Social
Security. That is why, of course, I will vote for what is on the floor
today because approximately 120,000, 140,000 women will benefit, but
let us not leave the millions of other widows behind whose needs would
be addressed by the Matsui legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
will sum up by making one other observation. I see the gentleman from
Florida has a pay-for in his legislation. His bill will cost $4 billion
over the next 10 years. The interesting thing about the pay-for,
however, is that it comes directly out of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights
legislation in which he used the same pay-fors to pay for the revenue
offsets in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights which passed in the sunset bill
about the middle of April.
In addition to that, I understand the bill that is coming up
tomorrow, the welfare reform package, they are using the same offsets
to pay for that as well. So it will be kind of interesting to see how
they really use their pay-fors in order to actually make this bill
fully funded.
I might just finally point out that our bill does not take any money
out of the Social Security Trust Fund. It comes out of general
revenues, the same general revenues that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle would have taken in October of last year when they
passed their first GOP stimulus bill, in which 16 of the largest low-
taxed corporations in America would have gotten an immediate tax break
of $7.4 billion basically that would have been retroactive 16 years of
the alternative minimum tax. Altogether it was $25 billion in tax
reduction for major corporations in America that really do not need it,
including $254 million to Enron and $1.4 billion to IBM. All of these
would have received tax cuts without a pay-for. We would take our pay-
for out of the same source that the gentleman would have given major
tax cuts to.
I see he paid for his. On the other hand, it is coming from the
Taxpayers Bill of Rights or tomorrow's welfare reform package, so I
find it somewhat inconsistent in terms of where his pay-for is actually
going to come from. We support this bill. We wish we could have had a
vote on our bill in the form of an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to just comment briefly on the observation that the
gentleman just made. There is an old saying that there are two things
in life that are certain, one is death and the other is taxes. I think
we can add to that the provision that bills are going to languish in
the Senate and will not be taken up, so I would guess that these pay-
fors are going to be used over and over again in this House until the
Senate finally passes something, which the American people really would
like to see them do and like to see us work together to do these
things.
I would also like to say that this particular bill in the pay-for is
a budget function. It does not take any general revenue and put it into
the Social Security system as the gentleman from California's bill
does.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to at this time correct a figure that
I gave the House earlier. I said that the cost of doing nothing was $27
trillion. That figure is actually $25 trillion over 75 years. When I
look, and as I see and as I have heard and read from the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and from the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui), they do not think that we have to do anything. They do not
think we have to forward fund Social Security. Let me just run a couple
of statistics by the House. I hate to take this time on this particular
bill because it is peripheral to it, but in that all of the benefits
that the gentleman from California keeps talking about in his bill are
in my Social Security bill or my bill to save Social Security, I think
it does have some justification to be discussed and particularly since
my Social Security bill has been discussed at length as a privatization
bill, which it is clearly not.
When Social Security first came on-line many, many years ago, there
were 40 some workers per retiree. Now we are down to a little over
three. Soon it will be a little over two. A pay-as-you-go system has
served us well and as long as we had a lot of workers at the bottom and
few retirees at the top, it was fine. It worked great.
{time} 1700
But now we know and the actuaries have told us, and now through the
Democrat administration and the Republican administration they have
advised us that there is a deficit pending in the Social Security
System over the next 75 years of $25 trillion. Mr. Speaker, that is a
lot of money. That is
[[Page H2422]]
money that can bring down an entire economy.
So I say to my friend from California and other Members that think
there is no need to do something, we are going to be faced with a
dilemma and we had better start facing it. Do we want to cut benefits
by one-third? I doubt it. But that is what we will have to do if we are
going to keep the system going as a pay-as-you-go system.
Do we want to increase payroll taxes by 50 percent? I am sure we do
not. But that is what we are going to have to do if you are going to
maintain benefits and keep it as a pay-as-you-go system.
Or do we want to rack up a deficit of $25 trillion over the next 75
years? I am not making these figures up. I do not come to this floor
unprepared with these figures. It is a question of what the
administration has said through the Social Security System, now through
a Democrat and a Republican administration.
So I think it is time that we quit the talk about privatization, quit
the talk about raiding the trust fund, all of these sorts of things. It
is pure nonsense, because we do not raid the trust fund, because there
is no money in the trust fund. There are only Treasury Bills, and you
cannot raid the Treasury Bills.
I would also say that over the years when the Democrats controlled
this House and the Senate and spending was very much in the red, that
the Democrats did not raid the Social Security trust fund, because the
system just does not work that way. But those are great words to really
worry our seniors.
The seniors of this country have paid into a Social Security system
as they know it today, and this Congress or no Congress should touch
it. We should maintain the system and the integrity of the system as
exactly what they have paid into.
However, it is time for us to begin to think ahead. If we do not want
to raise payroll taxes, if we do not want to cut benefits, then we had
better start planning ahead for the next generation, instead of just
the next election. All we have heard about from the other side is the
next election. Let us be responsible legislators and get together and
save Social Security. Let us be concerned about our grandkids and our
kids.
This is tremendously important. I think about every one of my 13
grandkids every time I think about where are we going to leave this
country and this great retirement system. These little bitty kids are
going to be seniors some day; they are going to be facing the
possibility of poverty. They are going to pay into a Social Security
system all of their working years.
They deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve a responsible Congress
that will go ahead and put all this rhetoric aside and reform Social
Security. Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to see that until
after this election, because there are some in this House that would
rather have the issue that might change the majority of this House
rather than saving Social Security for their kids. That is a sad
commentary, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I would like to end on a positive note and urge that all
of the Members of this body vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4069 which is before
this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all
Members that it is not in order to cast reflections on the Senate.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, but
it is with my extreme disappointment.
Mr. Speaker, five million widows currently experience a drastic
reduction of benefits of up to 50 percent after their spouse dies. The
poverty rate remains a staggering 15 percent for widows. That is simply
wrong. America's seniors should not have to be confronted with a
dramatic reduction in their Social Security income at the same time
their beloved spouse dies. It should not happen.
That is why we should be debating legislation today that would
guarantee Social Security benefits for elderly widows. But we are not.
Instead, we are debating a totally inadequate Republican proposal
that would cover only 125,000 widows. The Republicans would leave over
four million widows--four out of ten of whom depend on Social Security
for 90 percent of their income--with severely cut benefits.
But it is a small step in the right direction. Covering 125,000
widows is better than covering none, which is our only other
alternative and which is why I will support this weak bill. But let's
not fool ourselves into thinking it is enough. We could do more.
Democrats want to do more.
Our substitute, which was not allowed to be considered today, would
have helped approximately 4.5 million elderly people--one million of
whom now live below the poverty level. It would have addressed this
problem in a meaningful way that helps our seniors out of poverty.
Instead, the Republicans are trying to fool the electorate into think
they care about this issue by offering something, anything. The fact is
that the Republicans find no problem with denying over four million
widows Social Security benefits while they look forward to spending $8
trillion to privatize the system.
Mr. Speaker, we should be doing more.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
legislation we are considering today, H.R. 4069, the Social Security
Benefit Enhancements for Women Act of 2002.
This bill makes a modest attempt to address current deficiencies in
the manner that Social Security compensates some widows.
The fact is that women are more likely than men to be dependent on
Social Security for their retirement. Because of the kind of jobs they
are more likely to hold, the responsibilities that they face with
children and the work interruptions that result from family
commitments, women tend to have lower earnings than men, are less
likely to have pensions and therefore are more reliant upon Social
Security for their retirement.
The bill we are considering today rectifies a few inequities in the
system that are faced by certain widows whose benefits are unfairly
reduced by the rigidity of the system. However, if the Majority wants
to truly begin to address the failings in the system for widows we
should be considering Representative Matsui's more comprehensive
legislation today--H.R. 4671, the Social Security Widow's Benefit
Guarantee Act.
Representative Matsui's bill, which I proudly cosponsored, would go
much further than the bill on the floor and grant real retirement
security for poor seniors by guaranteeing widows a benefit equal to 75
percent of the combined benefits the couple had been receiving prior to
the death of the spouse.
Guaranteeing a livable retirement benefit for widows is critical
because they tend to be overwhelmingly dependent on Social Security.
As a group, 75 percent of elderly non-married women, including
widows, rely on Social Security for half of their income.
In the short-term these women deserve the guarantee Mr. Matsui's bill
would provide. In the long-term, we need to make sure benefits are
available as promised and not risk the future of the system by
privatizing it.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Shaw) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R.
4069, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. 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.
____________________