[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H435-H437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MAINTAINING AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the prior 
gentleman's commendation of those who fought on behalf of liberty at 
the Battle of the Bulge. We bow before them. They bequeathed liberty to 
this generation. It is a heavy burden. Let us hope that we can measure 
up to it in tribute to their valor.
  At last night's State of the Union Address, passing a transportation 
and infrastructure bill to repair America and build forward a new 
century, as we create hundreds of thousands of jobs, got the broadest 
bipartisan applause. You could hear it on both sides of the aisle. So I 
come to the floor this morning to

[[Page H436]]

say, Let's do it. Let's do it. Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member 
Peter DeFazio are two Members who can get us there. We want to help 
them. I know the majority of Members feel that way. So my words to them 
are: Onward, gentlemen; lead America forward by passing that bill 
through us.
  On another front, I rise to express deep dismay at what I believe to 
be Republican efforts to weaken and begin dismantling the Social 
Security and disability insurance program that so many Americans depend 
upon. The headline in yesterday's Politico reads: ``Social Security 
disability under attack by the GOP.''
  As this Congress starts, Republicans have quietly and without 
consulting Democrats tucked into the rules of this House a point of 
order provision that aims to harm our Nation's 8,950,000 disabled 
citizens and weaken the related Social Security earned benefit program. 
The number of Americans on disability today in a Nation of over 310 
million people amounts to less than 3 percent of our population. That 
is actually a very small number when you think about it. God has been 
good to most of us, but that isn't true physically and mentally with 
many of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, even though the number of disability approvals has been 
declining since 2010, Republicans have begun this Congress by singling 
out the disabled. They haven't targeted Wall Street moguls who brought 
our economy down and stole trillions of dollars of home equity and the 
very homes from our families. No, Republicans are targeting the 
injured, the suffering, and those not able to fend for themselves. Even 
to touch this subject so callously is a cruelty. It causes worry and 
trepidation. It makes life more uncertain.
  Why should such an important change not be debated on this House 
floor? Republicans instead hope to pull the wool over the eyes of the 
American people by hiding it in an obscure rule that was part of a 
massive parliamentary package for this 114th Congress. But I tell you 
what, not all Americans have been fooled. Despite this subtle attempt 
to pit Social Security pensioners against disabled beneficiaries, our 
office has already received a great number of calls and letters from 
citizens sick over the possibility that a 20 percent benefit cut could 
adversely affect our neighbors and relatives most in need.
  These proposed cuts in Social Security and disability insurance--and 
I underline the word ``insurance''--set the stage for what Republicans 
truly want, and I fear: severe cuts, a weakened Social Security system, 
and ultimately dismantling one of our greatest American legacies, 
earned Social Security benefits and earned disability benefits for our 
old, our ill, and our disabled. Our disabled and senior citizens have 
the right to live out their lives with dignity. And for so many, their 
lives are not easy.
  I remind my colleagues who visit nursing homes and who have neighbors 
or relatives in their own family who endure pain every day how vital 
these programs are. There but for the grace of God go you.
  This Congress should oppose these backhanded cuts, and at the same 
time we should support the passage of the transportation and 
infrastructure jobs bill to build our Nation forward. There are items 
we can agree on, and there will be items that we disagree on. But our 
roads, our bridges, our harbors, our airports, our rail systems, the 
St. Lawrence Seaway System, and navigable waters all deserve our 
attention. We can make it happen this year. Let's do it.

                     [From POLITICO, Jan. 20, 2015]

             Republicans Target Social Security Disability

                           (By David Rogers)

       Like Mrs. O'Leary's cow, House Republicans kick-started a 
     bigger fire than many imagined with an opening day rules 
     change that revived Social Security as a hot issue for this 
     Congress--and the 2016 presidential elections.
       The GOP's immediate target is Social Security's sprawling 
     disability insurance program, which has grown at a pace far 
     beyond its revenues and will exhaust its trust fund reserves 
     by December 2016, threatening a 19 percent cut in benefits.
       In the past, Congress has simply shifted revenues from 
     Social Security's larger retirement account to fill holes in 
     the disability fund. But the new House rule throws up a 
     roadblock by creating a point of order against any such bill 
     that does not improve the ``actuarial balance'' of the 
     combined funds.
       ``What we want to do is not kick the can down the road 
     anymore,'' said Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), who promoted the 
     change as chairman of the Social Security panel on the House 
     Ways and Means Committee. ``The rule is intended to get the 
     Congress to at least take a first step toward solving the 
     Social Security problem. If we continue the way we are, it's 
     a go-broke operation.''
       ``If all they're doing is rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul, that's 
     going to be subject to a point of order, and rightly so in my 
     opinion,'' added Rep. Thomas Reed (R-N.Y.). ``We have to 
     protect the retirement fund and the retiree.''
       It all sounds like ``good government,'' but the politics 
     are rich.
       House Democrats were not consulted on the rules change, and 
     liberals accuse the GOP of trying to cull the weak from the 
     herd, pitting the disabled against pensioners to undermine 
     the larger Social Security coalition.
       In fact, the new rule's fine print leaves an escape hatch 
     for Republicans to move tens of billions into the disability 
     fund if this gambit fails. Still, the upshot could be a one-
     two punch Democrats most fear: a first-round debate over 
     disability funding in 2016 followed by a bigger battle over 
     all of Social Security in 2017, when Republicans hope to 
     control both Congress and the White House.
       ``They're looking for a new weapon,'' said Michigan Rep. 
     Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on Ways and Means. ``What 
     they're doing in this rule is to use any problems within 
     disability as a way to attack the whole system. It's 
     dangerous doubletalk when they have been the problem, not the 
     answer.''
       Adding to Levin's fears was testimony last week before Ways 
     and Means, in which Harvard economist Martin Feldstein 
     promoted the idea of Congress gradually raising the 
     eligibility age for full Social Security benefits to as high 
     as 70. That would increase labor-force participation among 
     people older than 65, expanding the economy, Feldstein said. 
     But raising the retirement age would add to the strain on the 
     disability fund, which has had to cover more workers longer 
     since the retirement age was raised from 65 to 67.
       These tensions fueled a separate uproar last week over 
     remarks by 2016 presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul about the 
     disability program.
       Testing the waters in an appearance in New Hampshire, the 
     Kentucky Republican suggested that half the people on Social 
     Security disability had no more to worry about than achy 
     backs and anxiety in the morning. ``Join the club. Who 
     doesn't get up a little anxious for work and their back 
     hurts,'' Paul said disparagingly.
       After video of his remarks went online, Paul quickly 
     backtracked: ``We absolutely should take care of those truly 
     in need of help,'' he said in a statement.
       At this stage, the White House and Treasury show no sign of 
     backing down from their intent to pursue a straight 
     reallocation of funds from the retirement account, formally 
     known as the Old Age Survivors Insurance or OASI trust fund. 
     Given all the divisions already in Washington, adding a new 
     procedural hurdle is ``unhelpful,'' an administration 
     official said icily.
       Indeed, transfers between the two Social Security funds 
     have gone on for years. Each relies on a percentage of the 
     same payroll tax, and the disability program helped the 
     retirement trust fund in the 1980s by reducing its own share 
     of the tax revenue.
       What's most changed now is that critics are singling out 
     the disability fund as the profligate partner--and a 
     harbinger of bad times ahead for all.
       Without doubt, the growth of the disability program has 
     been explosive.
       In the past 20 years, the number of workers getting 
     disability payments has more than doubled to 8.95 million 
     last month. About $140 billion went out the door in fiscal 
     2013, double what the costs were just 10 years before. And 
     like food stamps in the Farm Bill debate, disability payments 
     are common enough now to be a whipping boy for conservatives 
     like Paul, playing on resentment toward people receiving 
     government aid during hard economic times.
       At one level, this is all political catnip for Democrats, 
     eager to be seen as defenders of Social Security and its New 
     Deal heritage. But given their history, Republicans don't 
     come to the table with clean hands.
       For example, the GOP's 2011 budget deal with President 
     Barack Obama held out the promise of millions in 
     appropriations to help the Social Security Administration 
     fight precisely what Republicans complain about in the 
     disability program: medical fraud. But for 2012 and 2013, 
     House Republicans failed to approve the money, thereby adding 
     to Social Security's woes.
       Moreover, an analysis by Social Security's chief actuary, 
     Stephen Goss, suggests there's less to the new House rule 
     than meets the eye. That's because the point of order is 
     triggered only if lawmakers exceed a ``0.01 percent'' 
     threshold, which equates to a $38.6 billion cap on what any 
     one Congress can move from the retirement fund, Goss told 
     POLITICO.
       That leaves too little room for some long-term, multiyear 
     reallocation of payroll tax revenues but it is enough to get 
     past 2016, by Goss' calculations.

[[Page H437]]

       ``We're projecting [disability] trust funds will be 
     depleted in December of 2016. . . . The shortfall for the 
     ensuing 12 months would come to about $29 billion,'' Goss 
     said. ``What that means is that we could have a tax rate 
     reallocation that could apply in 2016 or 2016 and 2017 that 
     would generate up to $30 billion or even $35 billion 
     transferred to the [disability] trust fund, which would at 
     least extend its reserve depletion date for one more year.''
       It's a stop-and-go scenario that serves neither party's 
     goals in the end. Much depends in the interim on Johnson and 
     new Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
       Ryan has boasted that Ways and Means will be ``command 
     central'' for the GOP's agenda, and he has installed his own 
     staff in Johnson's Social Security subcommittee. In the 
     previous Congress, the disability debate among Republicans 
     was shaped by flamboyant personalities such as the now-
     retired Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-
     Calif.), who has had to surrender his platform as chairman of 
     the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But now, Ryan 
     would like to be the architect for reforms in the social 
     safety net.
       There is room for compromise. The crisis is no surprise--as 
     long ago as 1995, Social Security's actuaries were predicting 
     2016 as a breaking point for the disability fund. And 
     multiple academic papers from the center-left and center-
     right outline changes Congress could consider.
       Three potential areas of agreement: First, find a dedicated 
     source of money for Social Security to expedite so-called 
     continuing disability reviews, which have been shown to 
     generate savings. Second, limit recipients' ``double-
     dipping'' among disability and other government benefits. And 
     third, experiment with ways to help people with disabilities 
     to stay in the workforce or return more quickly.
       The past year has seen some turnaround on funding for the 
     disability reviews. In the fiscal 2014 and 2015 Social 
     Security budgets, House Republicans finally agreed to the 
     extra ``program integrity'' appropriations that the budget 
     deal had called for. The Social Security Administration says 
     every dollar spent here can lead to $9 in long-term savings, 
     and in 2013--the latest year for which data are available--
     more than 17,000 workers were disqualified as a result of 
     these medical reviews.
       The administration estimates that as many as 790,000 
     continuing disability reviews will be conducted this year, a 
     50 percent increase over 2014 and double the annual average 
     from 2009-2013. To maintain this effort, the 2016 budget that 
     Obama proposes in February is expected to ask again for close 
     to the $1.4 billion provided in 2015.
       The White House is also expected to come back to Congress 
     with a set of demonstration programs to test and gather data 
     on the effectiveness of early intervention--with workers and 
     employers--rather than individuals simply surrendering to 
     going on disability. The omnibus bill approved in December 
     provided $35 million for this purpose, far less than what the 
     administration had hoped for.
       ``I think it's clear that the system needs to be 
     improved,'' said Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard professor who 
     served in the Office of Management and Budget during Obama's 
     first term. ``I also think it's clear that we don't yet know 
     enough about the cost and benefits of specific proposals to 
     make wholesale changes.''
       Part of the challenge for policymakers is the unique nature 
     of disability insurance.
       Unlike many other disability programs, Social Security's 
     covers only total disability--not partial or short term. 
     Benefits are a function of how much a worker previously 
     earned and put into the system, but on average these run 
     under $1,200 per month. On top of this, a worker is allowed 
     to earn some outside income, but this is capped at less than 
     $1,100 a month.
       The result is that many households can be locked in at 200 
     percent of poverty or lower once the decision is made to go 
     on disability. That's why early intervention can help both 
     the government and the worker. But how early to intervene--
     and at what cost--remain big questions.
       ``They are really only biting at the outer edges of the 
     issue. Their idea of early intervention is way too late,'' 
     said Richard Burkhauser of Cornell University and the 
     University of Melbourne. Burkhauser argues that the U.S. must 
     look to European countries like the Netherlands that ``have 
     really done major things that have fundamentally altered 
     their system.''
       The Dutch model, for example, requires employers to cover 
     more of the first two years of disability costs, thereby 
     encouraging more management involvement in trying to help 
     employees rehabilitate themselves and stay in the workforce. 
     Yet selling this to a pro-business Republican Congress may 
     take more than a little doing.
       ``The Dutch still spend more of [gross domestic product] 
     than we do on disability benefits,'' Liebman said. ``They 
     came from spending a lot more than we do to spending more 
     than we do.''
       Johnson is certainly not eager for big new expenditures. 
     But for all his famous crustiness, the Texas conservative was 
     not unsympathetic to people who depend on the current system.
       ``We want to work to protect the disability program, but we 
     want to consider how to help those who can and want to 
     work,'' Johnson said. ``And those who can or want to work 
     ought not to be sentenced to a lifetime of near poverty with 
     no way out.''
       For all the partisanship now, the disability insurance 
     program was born in the mid-1950s under a Republican 
     president, Dwight Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan triggered bitter 
     fights 25 years later when he sought cuts in the early 1980s. 
     That sparked a backlash from Democrats in Congress, which led 
     to changes making it easier for more people to qualify.
       But the enrollment numbers really took off in the mid-
     1990s, as more baby boomers moved into their late 40s and 
     began applying during an otherwise strong economy. The Great 
     Recession accelerated this trend as workers turned to 
     disability as a last resort after unemployment benefits ran 
     out. But the prime mover for the past 20 years has been 
     demographics--changes set in motion generations ago.
       These include not just the baby boom, but the fact that 
     women have worked long enough now to qualify for disability 
     benefits. All this comes, most importantly, at a time when 
     the drop in birth rates has left fewer younger workers to 
     help absorb the costs.
       If all these forces make disability insurance the black 
     sheep now, it will soon have company: The retirement side of 
     Social Security is feeling the same forces, while new 
     enrollment numbers suggest the spike in disability has 
     peaked. Data show a steady drop in the number of new 
     disability awards since their high in 2010.
       ``The increasing effects of [disability insurance] are 
     over. We're done with that,'' Goss said. ``The bad news is 
     now the boomers are moving to the higher ages and once they 
     get there, they'll have the lower-birth-rate generation below 
     them. . . . This is unfortunately kind of like the tide.''
       As the waters recede, rural low-income states like 
     Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi and Maine face a larger 
     concentration of disability cases as a percentage of the 
     population. Workers complain of a slow, almost Dickensian 
     application process that can put their lives on hold for 
     months. This same environment can attract aggressive 
     attorneys, who boast in phone book ads that this is their 
     briar patch--just call.
       Fresh indictments this past week in Puerto Rico are a 
     reminder of the risk of fraud--and collusion among doctors, 
     lawyers and administrative judges. Government Accountability 
     Office reports have raised questions about workers double-
     dipping, by stringing together payments from Social Security 
     disability along with jobless benefits or non-combat-related 
     disabilities covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       None of this alters the 2016 deadline.
       ``The trust fund programs really are special because they 
     cannot borrow. The reserves deplete. Congress has to act,'' 
     Goss said. ``We'll still have revenue come in, but our 
     projection is we'll only have 81 cents of tax revenue coming 
     at that time for every dollar of benefits.''
       But under the new House rule, Goss said, any single piece 
     of legislation can give the program at most ``a one-year or 
     slightly more than a one-year extension of the reserve 
     depletion date.''
       Does that mean Congress should do more than one year?
       The actuary chuckled. ``The good news,'' he said, ``is that 
     given we have 535 members of Congress, we'll hear lots of 
     arguments and that will likely be one.''

                          ____________________