[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.

                          ____________________