[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1801-1803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  1030
 MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, SENIOR CITIZENS' 
                      FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at 
any time to consider in the House without intervention of any point of 
order the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained 
retirement age; the bill be considered as read for amendment; the 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
the bill be considered as adopted; the bill, as amended, be debatable 
for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and the previous 
question be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object. I strongly support repeal of the Social Security earnings limit 
and do

[[Page 1802]]

not intend to unduly delay action on this bill. In fact, repeal of the 
earnings limit has been part of the comprehensive Social Security 
reform legislation that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I 
have introduced in the last two Congresses.
  However, I rise in reservation to this unanimous consent request to 
express my disappointment that we are considering legislation that will 
increase Social Security benefits without even discussing the long-term 
financial challenges facing Social Security. We should have spent the 
last year working on a comprehensive plan to strengthen Social Security 
that would restore solvency, reduce unfunded liabilities, give workers 
greater control of their retirement income, improve the safety net, and 
reward work; but we, both the President and Congress, have ignored our 
opportunity to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social 
Security.
  If we are going to pass this legislation increasing costs outside of 
the context of reform, we should at least be talking about ways to 
bring more attention to the challenges that remain. The gentleman from 
Arizona and I had hoped to offer an amendment regarding the recent 
recommendations of the Social Security advisory board which would more 
directly confront Congress with the true scope of Social Security's 
financing challenges. Our amendment would have made a modest step in 
advancing the discussion about the challenges facing Social Security 
among policymakers and the public.
  Last November, the Social Security Advisory Board Technical Panel 
released a report outlining a variety of recommendations about how we 
measure the problems facing the Social Security trust fund, how we talk 
about those problems and criteria for evaluating reform proposals. Our 
amendment would have taken the good work of the Technical Panel to 
encourage a more honest and accurate discussion of the challenges 
facing Social Security.
  The Technical Panel report suggested that the challenges facing 
Social Security may be even greater than reported. While there has been 
a lot of discussion about the possibility that a stronger economy will 
reduce the shortfalls facing Social Security, the Technical Panel 
warned us that the projected shortfall could increase as life 
expectancy increases faster than expected.
  The panel also made a variety of useful recommendations about 
additional information that should be included in the trustees' report 
regarding the size of the unfunded liability and other information 
illustrating the nature of the problem in greater detail. This type of 
information would improve the quality of the Social Security debate 
tremendously, because the facts of the debate would be more clearly 
established and stated.
  Finally, the panel made several recommendations for the evaluation of 
Social Security reform proposals. In particular the panel suggested 
that we should look beyond simply determining whether or not a plan 
restores trust fund solvency and consider other criteria that are as 
important as, if not more important than restoring solvency over the 
75-year period such as the effect on the rest of the budget.
  Unfortunately, today we do not have time to discuss any of these 
issues. I would respectfully encourage the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the subcommittee on Social Security to conduct 
hearings on these recommendations so that they may receive the 
attention they deserve. I also hope the Social Security trustees 
seriously consider all of the recommendations of the technical panel.
  Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) with whom I have 
worked closely on strengthening the future of Social Security, a Member 
who has been a leading advocate of comprehensive Social Security reform 
legislation that repeals the earnings limit and ensures that Social 
Security will be strong for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas 
yielding to me under his reservation. I will be very brief. Let me just 
say I feel very privileged today and am proud to be associated with the 
remarks that the gentleman from Texas just made. The gentleman from 
Texas has been and continues to be a leader in the fight to have a 
responsible Social Security reform. The integrity and the unwavering 
commitment that he has shown for preserving Social Security for future 
generations are worthy of the respect of all of us in this body.
  I am a longtime advocate of repealing the earnings limit. It is a 
remnant of depression-era policies that have no place in a 21st century 
economy. I have supported similar measures in the past and as the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has said, it is a cornerstone of 
the Kolbe-Stenholm Social Security reform legislation.
  However, I am disappointed that Congress is passing this important 
reform without at least confronting the impact the change is going to 
have on the trust fund. Like it or not, election year or not, sooner or 
later this House, this Congress, this Nation must address the financial 
crisis that looms over Social Security. The longer we wait, the tougher 
the choices are going to be.
  The legislation we pursue today must become one part of a 
comprehensive reform package. There are no shortage of reform options. 
There is the one that I mentioned myself that the gentleman from Texas 
and I have proposed. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) have another one. The gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), those are 
just a few of the reform proposals that have been offered in this House 
but have yet to come to the floor, have yet to be really debated. What 
we lack is will and leadership in this country and we have seen that at 
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  We should pass this bill today. But I do not think we should be 
content with this effort. We must recognize that we have an obligation 
to preserve Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. 
Speaker, only real reform will do that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the 
subcommittee dealing with Social Security.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me under his 
reservation. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Texas as 
well as the gentleman from Arizona and many more Members of this body 
for having a genuine desire and actually having stepped forward with 
regard to some genuine steps to prolong the life of Social Security and 
even to bring it about as a permanent program that would no longer be 
concerned about the amount of funding.
  The gentleman has taken some bold steps, and he is to be complimented 
on that. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the 
full committee, and I have also put a plan on the table that has a 
great deal in common with the Stenholm-Kolbe plan, and we had hoped to 
bring this forward.
  History tells us, however, that there is no genuine Social Security 
reform without the inclusion of the President. Every single major 
change that has been made in Social Security has been made with the 
encouragement and the joinder of the White House. Also, it would be 
wrong and extremely difficult for one party to reform Social Security 
without being joined by the other party. We have sent out many, many 
feelers to the White House. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer) has been down and talked personally with the President. He is 
well aware of your plan, and he is well aware of our plan.
  We have also spoken with members of the leadership on the Democrat 
side and we have also spoken to organized labor and various senior 
groups. We find now that everything seems to be getting down into 
presidential politics and to actually quote the President from an 
interview he had, I think it was a Wall Street Journal some weeks ago, 
he said that this reform would be left to the next President.
  I regret that. But I think that that is a fact of life and it is 
something that

[[Page 1803]]

we are going to be faced with. I look to next year, perhaps we could 
still do it this year. I would like to reach out to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
and to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and all those who want to 
reform Social Security.
  We are going to have more hearings. We are not going to waste the 
rest of the year. However, I will say this, and I think this is 
tremendously important. Part of Social Security reform has been to lock 
away the Social Security surplus so it cannot be spent. The House has 
done that. Also, an important part is a bill that we have today, and 
that is to get rid of this shameful earnings penalty that should have 
been done away with many, many years ago and was not.
  This is a great day, and it is a day for us to celebrate that we are 
coming together, we have a piece of Social Security reform. This is a 
very important piece for our seniors. I compliment the gentleman from 
Texas, and I look forward to continuing to work with him for the rest 
of the year.
  We are going to have hearings; we are going to have hearings on this 
and many issues pertaining to Social Security between now and the end 
of this term, and we all will come back next term and really put it 
away. We are not wasting time, we are going ahead with the hearing 
process.
  However, we need a coming together, we need a joinder, we need to get 
the presidential election behind us. I would hope whoever the President 
is, the next President is, that that President, that he will be 
anxious, willing and reach out to the House and the Senate to reform 
Social Security for all time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment, but I would like 
to commend the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona. I 
looked at their proposal. It has been out there now for a year and a 
half. I have to say it is a very credible proposal. It is probably one 
of the most realistic proposals that we have before us.
  The fact that you have raised this before this matter is brought to 
the floor is timely, and I am very pleased that you have done so. I 
would want to say, however, that both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) have a proposal, the 
President has a proposal, and perhaps there will be a time in the next 
few months where we can bring a number of them, all three, four or five 
of them, whatever number there are, together to begin to discuss them. 
Obviously the solving of the Social Security deficit problem is the 
number one problem we are all facing. But I appreciate the fact that 
the two gentlemen have raised this issue.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and 
I will conclude by this observation. I would very muchly associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida. He has been a 
true worker in this endeavor. He points out some of the pitfalls and 
the difficulties that we would have this year. But by the same token, 
and I will have more to say about this in the 2 hours of general 
debate, I would hope that everybody would recognize that there are 
those on this side of the aisle that are prepared to reach out in the 
hands of friendship and bipartisan work to deal with the tough 
questions and that how we handle this debate politically on both sides 
of the aisle can again do the kind of damage to the process of which I 
know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) do not 
wish to see happen. So I would hope that we could cushion and caution 
and soften our words as we debate today about this issue since there is 
unanimous agreement that this issue needs to happen.

                              {time}  1045

  It is the context in which we bring this reservation up.
  Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I encourage Members to unanimously 
support this very good piece of legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________