[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1803-1825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent request of 
earlier today, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the 
Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who 
have attained retirement age, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 5 is as follows:

                                 H.R. 5

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens' Freedom to 
     Work Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE 
                   ATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

       Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the age of 
     seventy'' and inserting ``retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l))'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by 
     striking ``the age of seventy'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``retirement age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking ``was age seventy 
     or over'' and inserting ``was at or above retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l))'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``33\1/3\ percent'' and all that follows 
     through ``any other individual,'' and inserting ``50 percent 
     of such individual's earnings for such year in excess of the 
     product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph 
     (8),''; and
       (B) by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``retirement age 
     (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``age 70'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``retirement age (as defined 
     in section 216(l))''; and
       (6) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Age Seventy'' and 
     inserting ``Retirement Age''; and
       (B) by striking ``seventy years of age'' and inserting 
     ``having attained retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING THE SPECIAL EXEMPT 
                   AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED 
                   RETIREMENT AGE.

       (a) Uniform Exempt Amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other 
     individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting ``a 
     new exempt amount which shall be applicable''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``Except'' and all that follows through ``whichever'' and 
     inserting ``The exempt amount which is applicable for each 
     month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever'';
       (2) in clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``corresponding'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (3) in the last sentence, by striking ``an exempt amount'' 
     and inserting ``the exempt amount''.
       (c) Repeal of Basis for Computation of Special Exempt 
     Amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Redundant References to Retirement 
     Age.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking 
     ``nor shall any deduction'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``nor shall any deduction be made under this 
     subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if 
     the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving 
     divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit 
     prior to attaining age 60.''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and 
     inserting the following: ``(D) for which such individual is 
     entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such 
     individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions for Determining 
     Amount of Increase on Account of Delayed Retirement.--Section

[[Page 1804]]

     202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``either''; and
       (2) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section 
     203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such 
     benefit''.
       (c) Provisions Relating to Earnings Taken Into Account in 
     Determining Substantial Gainful Activity of Blind 
     Individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``if 
     section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 
     had not been enacted'' and inserting the following: ``if the 
     amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior 
     Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior 
     Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999 had not been enacted''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments and repeals made by this Act shall apply 
     with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1998.

  SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 5, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 5

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens' Freedom to 
     Work Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE 
                   ATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

       Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the age of 
     seventy'' and inserting ``retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l))'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by 
     striking ``the age of seventy'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``retirement age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking ``was age seventy 
     or over'' and inserting ``was at or above retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l))'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``33\1/3\ percent'' and all that follows 
     through ``any other individual,'' and inserting ``50 percent 
     of such individual's earnings for such year in excess of the 
     product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph 
     (8),''; and
       (B) by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``retirement age 
     (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``age 70'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``retirement age (as defined 
     in section 216(l))''; and
       (6) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Age Seventy'' and 
     inserting ``Retirement Age''; and
       (B) by striking ``seventy years of age'' and inserting 
     ``having attained retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING THE EXEMPT AMOUNT 
                   FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED RETIREMENT 
                   AGE.

       (a) Uniform Exempt Amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other 
     individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting ``a 
     new exempt amount which shall be applicable''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``Except'' and all that follows through ``whichever'' and 
     inserting ``The exempt amount which is applicable for each 
     month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever'';
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``corresponding'';
       (3) in clause (ii), in the matter preceding subclause (I), 
     by striking ``corresponding'' and all that follows through 
     ``individuals)'' and inserting ``exempt amount which is in 
     effect with respect to months in the taxable year ending 
     after 1993 and before 1995 with respect to individuals who 
     have not attained retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))'';
       (4) in subclause (II) of clause (ii), by striking ``2000'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``1992,''; and
       (5) in the last sentence, by striking ``an exempt amount'' 
     and inserting ``the exempt amount''.
       (c) Repeal of Basis for Computation of Exempt Amount 
     Affecting Individuals Who Have Attained Retirement Age.--
     Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Redundant References to Retirement 
     Age.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking 
     ``nor shall any deduction'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``nor shall any deduction be made under this 
     subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if 
     the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving 
     divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit 
     prior to attaining age 60.''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and 
     inserting the following: ``(D) for which such individual is 
     entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such 
     individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions for Determining 
     Amount of Increase on Account of Delayed Retirement.--Section 
     202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``either''; and
       (2) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section 
     203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such 
     benefit''.
       (c) Provisions Relating to Earnings Taken Into Account in 
     Determining Substantial Gainful Activity of Blind 
     Individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``if 
     section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 
     had not been enacted'' and inserting the following: ``if the 
     amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior 
     Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior 
     Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000 had not been enacted''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments and repeals made by this 
     Act shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after 
     December 31, 1999.
       (b) Special Rule Applicable to Individuals Who Attain 
     Normal Retirement Age During the First Taxable Year Ending 
     After December 31, 1999.--Sections 202 and 203 of the Social 
     Security Act, as in effect immediately prior to the 
     amendments and repeals made by this Act, shall apply to any 
     individual who attains retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l) of such Act) during the first taxable year ending 
     after December 31, 1999 (and to any person receiving benefits 
     under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the 
     wages and self-employment income of such individual), but 
     only with respect to earnings for so much of such taxable 
     year as precedes the month in which such individual attains 
     retirement age (as so defined).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting day for me personally, and it is a 
great day for the hundreds of thousands of working seniors across this 
country. It is the culmination of my personal 29-year effort to repeal 
the earnings penalty.
  I launched this effort as one of the first bills that I introduced 
after being sworn in in 1971. The reason then to repeal the earnings 
penalty is the same as it is today: the earnings penalty is simply 
wrong. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson); the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security; and the Speaker for their tireless efforts on this 
bill.
  The Social Security earnings penalty, like the marriage tax penalty, 
like the death tax, like the capital gains tax, like the tax on 
savings, like the alternative minimum tax and so many other taxes, is 
simply unfair and wrong. It is unfair; it is backwards. The earnings 
penalty actually cuts Social Security benefits for many working seniors 
over the age of 65, and it discourages them from working. It increases 
their effective tax rate to the highest percentage of a lifetime for 
many of them, and that is wrong.
  Now, why in the world would we want to discourage any American, 
whether they are 17 or 67, from working?
  Today this Congress will once again do the right thing and repeal the 
earnings penalty for those hard-working and deserving Americans. I am 
proud to be a part of a Congress that fixes what is wrong and does what 
is right.
  It was right to balance the budget and to pay down the debt, and we 
did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare, and we did that. It was 
right to cut taxes for families and to promote higher education and 
expand health care, and we did that. It was right to fix the broken 
welfare system so that Americans can discover the freedom of work, 
independence and the power of responsibility, and we did that. It was 
right to reform the IRS, and we did that. It was right to expand 
educational opportunities for school children and give more flexibility 
to parents, teachers and local school boards,

[[Page 1805]]

and we did that. It was right to stop the raid on the Social Security 
trust fund and protect every dime of Social Security from being spent 
on other programs, and we did that.
  Now it is right to repeal the earnings penalty for working seniors. 
They deserve to be treated fairly. After all these years, it is 
heartening that this effort is finally bipartisan and the President 
will sign this bill. Clearly it is the right thing to do.
  The Social Security earnings penalty punishes seniors who choose to 
keep working. More seniors are choosing to work past their retirement 
for many reasons: for their own financial needs, because Social 
Security benefits for most are not adequate by themselves to support 
retirement; to help their families or their grandchildren through 
school; and for their own personal fulfillment. The point is, Americans 
are living longer now and older Americans can work, they want to work, 
and they should not be punished by an outdated law if they choose to 
work.
  In addition, repealing the earnings penalty now will unleash the 
productivity of one of the most experienced and talented workforces in 
this country at a time when our growing economy needs it. This is 
clearly a win-win for everyone, which is why the bill now enjoys 
widespread bipartisan support.
  In summary, repealing the earnings penalty is based on the 
fundamental principles of fairness and freedom. Seniors should be free 
to work without penalty and treated fairly by a program they paid into 
all of their lives. Working seniors across this country have waited 
long enough; and they deserve the action now, and they will get it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and members of the 
committee, and also the two prime sponsors of this bill, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson). They have obviously done a great job in getting cosponsors 
of this bill and explaining it to Members of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate some of the words of the 
chairman of the committee. The earnings test is obviously something 
that has been misunderstood over the years. It is basically a penalty 
on those senior citizens that have earned their Social Security benefit 
but want to stay in the workforce beyond the age of 65.
  The fact that we have had this earnings test actually has deterred 
over 800,000 Americans a year from the workforce. In fact, we have had 
some studies done by a University of California San Diego professor 
that has said that this will actually, by eliminating the earnings 
test, increase the labor pool in America by 5 percent.
  In addition, the Social Security Administration has estimated that 
the administration of the earnings test plus the delayed earnings 
credit essentially costs $100 to $150 million a year; and because of 
the earnings credit, we have seen errors in the range of $500,000 to 
$600,000 per year just in administering this program. As a result of 
that, it is obvious we should repeal it at this particular time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope also as we talk about repealing this 
earnings test, which will be done, we not be unmindful of what the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) said in terms of some of the long-term issues of Social Security 
that I am sure all of us in this institution want to deal with.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) yesterday when we marked up 
this bill indicated he will be holding in the month of March, this 
month, some additional hearings dealing with poverty among women, the 
blind and the disabled, and I want to thank the gentleman for holding 
those hearings as well, because I think that will further the 
procession of making sure that we create incentives for work under the 
Social Security system for those that need to work and receive benefits 
at the same time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this particular bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the highly respected chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Social Security.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I obviously strongly support H.R. 5, legislation that 
would repeal the earnings penalty for hard-working seniors age 65 and 
over. Many seniors are shocked to learn that if they work past the age 
of 65 they may lose some or even all of their Social Security benefits. 
This is due to something called the Social Security ``earnings limit'' 
or ``earnings penalty.'' This rule has been in place since Social 
Security started in the 1930's, but that does not make it right.
  Because of this rule, many older people left the workforce, making 
their jobs available for younger workers. That policy may have made 
sense during the Great Depression when those jobs were needed. However, 
that clearly does not apply today.
  Today's economy needs the experience and ability of seniors; yet the 
earnings penalty has lived on. Seniors affected by this penalty lose an 
average of $8,000 in benefits per year. Nationwide, about 800,000 lost 
benefits just last year, and thousands more avoided losing benefits by 
cutting back on how much they worked in order to avoid this unfair 
penalty.
  Some might recall that in 1996 we eased the earnings limit for 
seniors who reached the full retirement age. As a result, seniors aged 
65 through 69 have been able to earn a bit more each year since then 
without experiencing the cut in their benefits. While that was a 
positive step, many of us have long felt that it was wrong to punish 
hard-working seniors, period, many of whom just want to work, and many 
of whom have to work.
  Mr. Speaker, what message does the earnings penalty send? That the 
contributions of seniors are no longer needed? That seniors should head 
for the sidelines of the economy due to age alone? That seniors do not 
deserve the benefits that they paid for simply because they continue 
working? I do not think anybody in this chamber or in this Congress 
feels that way. That is why so many of us have expressed support for 
H.R. 5, this bipartisan bill before us today, that will eliminate this 
penalty for good.
  A broad spectrum of business and senior groups, including the AARP, 
support this bill. They know it is good for seniors, it is good for 
business, and it is good for this country and its economy.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the original sponsors of the 
bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) 
for his years of tireless work in relaxing and now repealing this 
earnings penalty. The gentleman has been a personal testament to what 
hard-working seniors can do. The gentleman especially should be 
gratified that all of his years of hard work to repeal this unfair 
limit are paying off.
  Mr. Speaker, eliminating the earnings penalty is the right thing for 
seniors who have spent a lifetime working for their Social Security 
benefits. They should get all the benefits they earn and that they have 
paid for. Today we are taking one major step closer to seeing that 
occur. I encourage the Senate to approve this legislation quickly so it 
can be signed into law as promised by the President.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and join in the accolades to those who have brought this bill to the 
floor today, which addresses a problem probably for 5 percent of the 
wealthiest beneficiaries under Social Security. It is a vestigial 
prohibition on getting retirement income. No other retirement plan 
denies that.

[[Page 1806]]

  I was intrigued this morning as we had all of this bipartisan self-
congratulation. The fact is that while we do this, there are partisan 
rumblings in attacking members of the Democratic Party for sometime in 
the past perhaps having voted against this procedure in another bill. 
So I would just as soon unmask for a while, in the most partisan way I 
can, the Republican charade, because while we are doing this, we are 
still denying under the Republican leadership the chance for the 
Patients' Bill of Rights bill to go forward. It is a bill that was 
passed in a bipartisan way; yet it is being stalled by the Republicans.
  Last year in October in the Committee on Ways and Means, in a 
bipartisan attempt to pass the Balanced Budget Act, we offered an 
amendment that would have given a discount on pharmaceutical drugs to 
every senior, a substantial discount, at no cost to the Federal 
Government, and every Republican voted to deny the seniors this 
opportunity to get a discount on their pharmaceutical drugs. So as we 
talk later today, I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
will explain to me why that is a good bipartisan thing for the seniors 
in Florida to be denied a discount, and I hope the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) will come down and explain to us why he voted to 
deny seniors in Arizona a discount on their pharmaceutical drugs.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding time to me. I appreciate what he has been doing on this bill. 
I know he has been working on it for many, many years. We truly 
appreciate it coming up today.
  Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago I introduced H.R. 5, the Freedom to Work Act. 
Yesterday, every member of the Committee on Ways and Means voted to 
send the bill to the floor to repeal the social security earnings 
penalty.
  Under current law, our seniors age 65 to 69 can earn only $17,000 
before they lose $1 in social security benefits for every $3 they earn. 
This limit is unfair, outdated, and bad for the economy. This obsolete 
social security earnings penalty must be eliminated.
  As we all know, our seniors have earned social security benefits 
through a lifetime of contributions. They have worked for them, and 
they are entitled to their full benefits. It is their money, it is not 
Washington's money. It should not be taken away from them just because 
they choose to work after they reach normal retirement age.
  The earnings penalty adversely affects 800,000 seniors who reach the 
normal retirement age. It discriminates against our senior citizens who 
must work in order to supplement their benefits. That is just not 
right. The earnings penalty is a Depression-era law whose time has long 
since come and gone. Today, with unemployment at record lows, seniors 
are needed in the work force, so the last thing we ought to do is 
discourage them from working.
  Senior citizens who work not only lose a large percentage of their 
social security benefits today due to the earnings penalty, but they 
pay social security taxes, Medicare taxes, Federal taxes, and probably 
State income taxes, as well. Combined with the earnings penalty and 
these other taxes, our seniors may face a marginal tax rate as high as 
80 percent.
  The earnings penalty is complicated and difficult to understand. In 
addition, the earnings penalty is complex and costly to the Federal 
government to administer. For example, the earnings penalty is 
responsible for more than half of the social security overpayments.
  The Social Security Administration estimates that administering the 
earnings penalty takes 1,200 people and costs $150 million a year. 
Repeal of the earnings penalty would allow our senior citizens to work 
more, the American economy would benefit from their experience and 
skills, and it does not cost anything.
  According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, a repeal 
of the earnings penalty will not affect the social security trust fund. 
Two weeks ago, the President finally agreed to sign the bill. I am 
pleased that he has decided to help us fix this unfair penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I fought for freedom in two wars, Korea and Vietnam. I 
believe that freedom entitles our seniors the ability to work without 
penalty. America's seniors want, need, and deserve a repeal of this 
penalty.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, last year almost 800,000 
seniors had their social security benefits reduced because of this 
earnings test. Next year, over 600,000 seniors will be forced to defer 
their benefits because they had earnings over $17,000.
  Today we are passing a commonsense change that allows seniors to be 
able to earn, be able to continue to work, and be able to collect their 
social security checks. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) 
pointed out, it will have no effect on the long-term solvency of social 
security.
  For the first time, we allow seniors to continue to earn a paycheck 
without taking it out of their social security check. Seniors who want 
to continue working should be able to stay in the labor force without 
losing their hard-earned social security benefits. At a time with a 
tight labor market and historically low personal savings, it does not 
make sense to discourage our most experienced workers from staying 
productive. Yet, the earnings penalty amounts to a 33 percent marginal 
tax rate on work.
  This change will particularly help women workers, who have 
historically had lower earnings and an uneven work history. Work for 
women becomes even more important, and they should not be penalized by 
the social security system.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out, as my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas, pointed out during an earlier discussion, yes, many of us would 
like to see comprehensive reform of our social security system. We 
should be doing that. But we should not stop making changes that are 
commonsense, that we can get done, such as removing the earnings test.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the same 
logic should apply to Medicare. If we are unable to bring forward 
comprehensive Medicare reform, let us at least agree on prescription 
drugs. We know in a bipartisan way that we need to do that.
  The example that we have used on this earnings test, a bipartisan 
agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans to move this bill, 
let us do the same on other issues that are important to all of our 
constituents.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who has labored so hard for this commonsense reform so 
greatly needed for so long.
  History reminds us that Arizona's favorite son, Barry Goldwater, in 
the other Chamber, brought this idea forward long ago. I am so glad, in 
the spirit of bipartisanship now, that others in previous Congresses so 
reluctant to address this commonsense reform would join with us today 
for this landmark legislation.
  Almost 20,000 seniors in Arizona, 1.1 million seniors nationwide, are 
being penalized because they choose to work, are being penalized 
because they bring to the workplace maturity and experience and energy.
  Mr. Speaker, we need those experienced workers in our work force. One 
thing I have learned in representing the Sixth Congressional District 
of Arizona, with so many seniors, is that these folks have so much to 
contribute, so much to give, yes, as volunteers in retirement age, but 
also active in the

[[Page 1807]]

work force. That is what they bring and that is what we celebrate 
today.
  So again, we welcome the converts to this, and we are at long last 
addressing this issue. This is a great day for America's seniors, for 
all Americans, because today we throw off the yoke of unfairness: an 
important first step which we must follow in many other ways, but it 
begins here, it begins now, and we welcome the cooperation.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, I voted to increase the Social 
Security earnings limit to $30,000, effectively the year after next. In 
1998, I voted to increase it even further, up to $39,000. So I am, of 
course, supportive when the Republican leadership finally gives us an 
opportunity to take the cap off entirely. This bill may help as many as 
5 percent of our most successful seniors.
  But amid all the self-congratulatory back-slapping that we see here 
today, let us be sure to understand what this bill is and what it is 
not. It represents well-justified relief for the top 5 percent. It 
represents top-down reform, but it does nothing for the 95 percent of 
the remaining Americans who rely on social security. It does nothing 
for those seniors whose health does not permit them to work, and who 
would benefit more from getting access to prescription drugs and an end 
to the discrimination they face with huge prices they are charged by 
the pharmaceutical companies.
  This legislation is very significant to older Americans who have the 
capacity to keep earning more than $30,000 a year, but in terms of 
overall reform of the Social Security system, to preserve it for future 
generations, it is a very modest change.
  Of all the changes that we can make in this Congress, interestingly 
enough, this is one of the few that is politically painless. It 
represents essentially an eat-dessert-first approach to reform. 
Congress should be grappling with the tough choices that we face on how 
to extend the solvency of Social Security for all Americans and for 
future generations of Americans, not just the politically easy step 
that primarily puts more benefits in the pockets of the most successful 
seniors, coincidentally, during an election year.
  I would say this morning, better a reform for 5 percent than no 
reform at all. But for most Americans who are counting on Social 
Security, this change makes no real difference in their lives. It is 
long past time that this Congress got about doing something for them.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), another respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thank the chairman for his hard work on this bill. Since 1986 the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of our committee, has 
been working on this product, joined with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), now, and with the leadership of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), we 
see victory today for senior citizens.
  But even in light of victory, we have to have a little bit of a 
political zinger put on the floor by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett). He has to drill a little needle there into this debate, 
rather than celebrate the rewards of senior citizens across America.
  At 65, under this policy that was maintained by 40 years of 
Democratic leadership, we were telling seniors, get out of the way, you 
are too old and you are too tired. Modern-day America recognizes, and 
particularly our party recognizes, that seniors 65 are in the prime of 
their lives.
  My father at 77 years of age retired as a principal of a high school 
in Lake Worth, Florida. He contributed to the children of Palm Beach 
County schools, and he did it because, first and foremost, he loved 
children, and secondly, he had a lot to give to our community.
  But no, for many, many years they blocked the attempt to reform this 
crazy notion of retirement at 65, or penalizing, should one work.
  Mr. Speaker, let us face reality. Just like social security predicts 
that more retirees than active workers will exist in 10 or 20 years, so 
will be the notion of less workers available for active duty. This bill 
provides relief for the baby boomers who will retire to stay engaged 
and stay working.
  So today, rather than taking political shots across the aisle, let us 
join hands in this bipartisan spirit. But I must insist on commending 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), because he has been working on 
this when he was in the minority, and finally now has had comity from 
the other side of the aisle to bring this measure to the floor; the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) in the same period, and again, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) from my district.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have probably the 6th and 
7th oldest Medicare recipient districts in the Nation. So today I join 
my good friend, the gentleman from south Florida, in saluting our 
retirees who worked so hard to pay to run the government of the United 
States of America.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the original sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today, along with my good friend, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), bringing this bill forward.
  This is something that I have been for for a long time. I used to do 
tax returns for a living, and saw firsthand the impact this had on 
people. This is something that probably made sense back in the 
thirties, but its time has past. It is time for us to get rid of this 
penalty, which causes these people to pay some of the highest marginal 
tax rates in this country.
  My district is a very rural district. We are having a lot of trouble 
out in the farm part of the district. In the cities, St. Cloud is a big 
city, and Moorhead, which is a middle-sized city, or Aurora, which is a 
small city, the problems we are having is getting enough workers to 
fill the jobs that we have out there.
  In this pool of workers that are being penalized, we have a lot of 
people that have talent that want to work, and this is going to free up 
a lot of folks to do what they want to do. It makes sense.
  One other thing I want to focus on. One of the things this will solve 
is, part of the problem our farmers are having is with their being 
taxed on the rent that they are charging for their farmland. The IRS, 
because apparently one word was left out of a statute, are forcing 
farmers to pay self-employment tax on their rent. These are the only 
businesspeople in America that are doing this. If you are in the real 
estate business, if you are a CPA, if you rent a building or land to 
your kids or to anybody else, you do not pay self-employment tax, but 
farmers do.
  If they pay this self-employment tax, they can also be subject to the 
self-employment tax penalty that we are getting rid of here today, so 
this is going to solve part of the problem.
  We appreciate the chairman's leadership on this issue, and we hope 
the gentleman would look at the other part of the problem, because it 
really is crazy, what we are doing to farmers. They have tremendous 
pressure on them now. In my district, none of them are making any 
money.

                              {time}  1115

  The last thing they need is to have another tax put on them. So we 
would appreciate a look at that.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. The gentleman has brought up a very sensitive point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has expired.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New

[[Page 1808]]

York (Mr. Houghton), another respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield briefly to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) 
brought up a point that we are waiting for the Commissioner of Social 
Security to reply to, because he has raised a very good point and 
something that our committee intends to address. I thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Houghton) for yielding to me.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for yielding me this time. It is sort of too 
bad that certain people on the other side take a partisan view of this 
thing. It is not partisan; it is bipartisan. It makes sense. The timing 
is right. There is overwhelming support for this.
  When I started to work in the early 1950s, 47 percent of the people 
over 65 were working. Today, only 17 percent. That is not very good.
  I always think as the speed of light and communication and data 
processing is sort of inevitable, so is the fact that people are living 
longer.
  I have a mother who is 99 years old, born in 1900. When she was born, 
the actual actuarial age of women was about 47. That was the life span. 
Today, it is in the 70s. Tremendous difference.
  We need able people. Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway has a lady 
over 90 years old working in his company. When companies get somebody 
good, they want to hold on to them. And people who work longer, they 
live longer, they feel healthy and want to make a contribution. So 
anything standing in the way, which is this double taxation of their 
Social Security benefits, is wrong and is not fair and it will be 
scrapped, and should be scrapped, if H.R. 5 goes through.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one other thing. There was a 
lady called Marijo Gorney, and she has worked around here for 35 years. 
She is now retired. Mr. Speaker, this was her baby. This was her 
concept. She pushed it. She is now retired; and I hope she is watching 
this, because a lot of the success of this program is due to her.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) a member of the committee.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my 
voice in support of repeal of the earnings test, and I am certainly 
pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means acted so quickly, once 
President Clinton urged us to do so on February 14. I only wish that at 
the committee level we could be as accommodating on some other issues.
  The retirement test is clearly a provision which has outlived its 
usefulness. With senior citizens living longer and longer, we should 
encourage those who want to continue to work, rather than discourage 
that effort. I do wish that we had the ability in committee to make 
some additional changes, however, such as offering the government 
pension offset that was sponsored by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Jefferson).
  Mr. Speaker, this unfair provision affects the spousal benefits of 
State and local workers and was enacted in response to a Supreme Court 
case that dealt with an entirely different problem. It is now time for 
that provision to be repealed as well, or at least significantly 
modified.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan bill. I hope it reaches the 
President's desk soon, and I hope it will serve as an example that 
reaching an agreement when we can is far better for the American people 
than producing what is oftentimes so much unnecessary conflict in this 
institution. I am pleased to lend my name in support of this 
initiative. It is long overdue, but the point is that we are acting on 
it today. I think that there is an opportunity here for a lot of people 
to take some satisfaction from this initiative.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), 
my friend and the distinguished chairman, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of H.R. 5. As just 
one of many on this side of the aisle who has worked hard to eliminate 
the archaic and punitive Social Security earnings test since coming to 
Congress 12 years ago, I am delighted that today we are finally going 
to right this wrong.
  I represent many seniors in southwest Florida who have eagerly 
awaited this moment and I know are going to be very happy. Last year, 
over 800,000 seniors across America were penalized simply because they 
chose or needed, needed, to remain productive members of our workforce. 
In an ever-expanding economy where employers increasingly lack capable 
and experienced employees, the Federal Government contrarily sends a 
message that our seniors need not apply.
  I know it is true, because I hear it firsthand from working seniors 
in southwest Florida who choose to stay active and supplement their 
retirement, perhaps as a cashier at the local grocery store or perhaps 
as a substitute teacher at the middle school.
  Proud Americans who survived the Depression and defeated Hitler's 
Germany are punished for displaying the same self-reliance, 
perseverance, and individual responsibility that defines them as our 
greatest generation and, frankly, has made our Nation as great as it is 
today. It is a national embarrassment that we will end today.
  Today, finally, and I say finally, the White House and congressional 
Democrats will apparently join with us in ending the unfair earnings 
tax. But it was not always so. Just 2 years ago, only 19 Democrats 
voted to end the earnings limit. But in the best spirit of our 
representative democracy, we have made our case and we have persuaded 
them, or at least most of them, to join us. This has been a long and 
trying fight. And besides the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my Florida colleague, and 
the gentleman from Texas (Sam Johnson), courageous souls like Jay 
Rhodes no longer here, Jim Bunning in the other body, who should be 
here to celebrate with us today I hope are taking joy in this.
  Above all, we should cheer our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert) who led the fight for incremental reform before it was 
fashionable and who appropriately will preside over this Congress today 
as we end this tax on working seniors once and for all. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Seniors Freedom to Work Act. More than 800,000 senior citizens aged 65 
to 69 in our country lose part or all of their Social Security benefits 
each year because of this so-called earnings test.
  Currently, the Social Security earnings penalty takes $1 in Social 
Security benefits from Americans 65 through 69 for every $3 they earn 
above the $17,000 per year limit. When Americans turn 65, they ought to 
be able to count on the Social Security benefits they have earned, and 
this bill would repeal the earnings test once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. But unfortunately, there has 
been a little partisan byplay here today; not from our side of the 
aisle, but from our friends on the Republican side. They are accusing 
us of reversing ourselves on this issue. They are referring to what in 
1998 we aptly termed the Raid Social Security for an Election Eve Tax 
Cut Act. I would like to just read what I said at the time we debated 
that bill:
  ``The problem is not with the specific tax cuts, but with using the 
Social Security Trust Fund surplus to pay for them. These tax cuts are 
also contained in the Democratic substitute'', in fact, it included 
exactly identical earnings test provisions, ``but they are paid for in 
that substitute and they maintain the trust in the trust fund.''
  So what we have before us right now, Mr. Speaker, is clean 
legislation that addresses the earnings test issue, unencumbered by 
controversial or extraneous provisions. Today, we have an

[[Page 1809]]

opportunity for a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan result, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), Majority Leader of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
for yielding me this time. I just wanted to take a moment to add my 
word of appreciation for everybody's good work on this. There can be 
nothing I can imagine that can be more unfair to our working senior 
Americans than to be told that under the law of this land that they are 
required to pay into the Social Security program all their working 
years, and then at that time in their life when they are entitled to 
withdraw the benefits that they paid for, that the government of the 
United States is going to take those benefits away if they have the 
audacity to continue work.
  Many of us have seen the injustice of this, and so many of us have 
worked on it over the years and had so many years of frustration.
  Mr. Speaker, I always like to remind people that this is the very 
first bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) introduced in 
Congress in 1972. I studied it as an undergraduate. I understood at the 
time how important it was. I have watched the gentleman from Texas (Sam 
Johnson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and the Speaker 
himself and others, and it is just such a heart-warming thing for me 
today to see us passing this legislation with such bipartisan support.
  The President committed to sign it, and we will finally have a real 
act of justice and fairness for today's working seniors. I just wanted 
to share in that moment with all of our body.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this bill, the retirement 
earnings test is an old vestige of the 1930s, created when Social 
Security was born as a way of telling who was truly retired and, 
therefore, qualified for benefits. It was looked upon as good policy 
then because it spurred older workers to stop working and take their 
Social Security benefits and, therefore, freed up jobs for younger 
workers in what was then, the 1930s, a period of high unemployment.
  Today, we do not have a labor surplus in most parts of the country; 
we have a labor shortage. For example, I had an owner of a trucking 
company call me a few months ago and tell me in desperation that this 
offset policy in Social Security was causing him to lose drivers. They 
would not work upon reaching the age of 65, and he could not replace 
them. He saw no reason for this policy, and I can tell from talking to 
other workers in my district neither do they.
  We can explain all the reasons behind it, going back to 1935, but 
most people see this as a stiff, unfair, tax on hard-working people. I 
think it is time for us to repeal these offsets all together for those 
people who have reached retirement age. The question arises: Why did we 
not do this in 1998? There has been some accusation here that some of 
us who voted for that particular tax bill then, which was an $8.1 
billion tax bill in 1998, voted against the elimination of the 
threshold. That bill would not have eliminated the threshold. It would 
have raised the threshold to $39,750 by 2008.
  But in 1996, almost all of us came out here and voted for H.R. 3136, 
the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996. This bill raised the 
limit in annual steps from $12,500 to $30,000 by 2002, and indexed the 
threshold after 2002 to rise with the rate of inflation. Had we simply 
followed the course of that law, by 2008, the threshold would have been 
about $38,000, just a little bit less than the bill in 1998 provided.
  So this argument is really not a fair argument. I am glad to see us 
bring something to the floor that is bipartisan. Let us keep it 
bipartisan. I do not think I need to encourage anybody to vote for 
this. The vote is going to be overwhelming. And any time we get this 
kind of bipartisan consensus on an issue of this substance, it is a 
sign of an idea whose time has come.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is right that we repeal today, right now, as 
soon as possible, this old and outdated vestige of the Social Security 
system and say this is something on which we all agree.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), one of our great committee 
members.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is all about fairness. This 
Congress has accomplished so much over the last 5 years, and I am proud 
that just in the past year we have accomplished our goal of stopping 
the raid on Social Security for the first time in 30 years and we 
balanced the budget without touching one dime of Social Security, paid 
down $350 billion of the national debt, and 3 short weeks ago this 
House passed with 268 votes, 48 Democrats joining with every House 
Republican, legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 25 
million married working couples who pay higher taxes just because they 
are married.
  Like the marriage tax penalty, the earnings limit on our seniors is 
an issue of fairness. And I want to commend the Speaker of the House, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Sam Johnson) who have been tireless leaders and 
fighters for this effort to bring fairness to seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this effort to repeal the 
earnings test on seniors was part of the Contract with America. It is 
unfinished business. For far too long, seniors who work after age 65 
have been punished. Since the 1930s, seniors who live longer, want to 
be active longer and work longer, have been punished. 800,000 seniors 
in America, 53,000 seniors in my home State in Illinois, are punished 
just because they want to work when they are age 65 or older.
  I think of my own parents, farmers in their early 70s today who want 
to work and be active longer. Like millions, they suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, the earnings limit on seniors is wrong. Let us repeal 
it. I appreciate the fact the President now says he will sign it into 
law. That makes it a bipartisan effort. I commend the chairman and 
commend the Speaker and commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) my friend, for their leadership. Let us get the job done. I 
ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, success has many fathers; failure is an 
orphan. This bill is an outstanding bill and we are all fighting over 
paternity.
  It is a bill that will help our economy by bringing experienced 
workers into a labor shortage work environment. It is a bill that will 
help 800,000 seniors and it is a bill that will actually help Social 
Security by bringing additional Social Security revenue and income tax 
revenue into the Federal Government as additional seniors enter the 
workforce.

                              {time}  1130

  As to the fight over paternity, it is a Democratic President who 
stood here in his State of the Union message and urged us to pass this 
bill and the Democratic alternative bill in 1998 which provided an 
increase in this limit which we are now going to repeal, and that 
alternative bill would have been signed into law. We voted for a bill 
that would have dealt with this issue in 1998 and would have become 
law.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer). I rise in strong support to 
repeal the earnings limitation for Social Security recipients. I am 
particularly pleased to be an original cosponsor of

[[Page 1810]]

this legislation. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Johnson).
  We have had a lot of debate and discussion over whose idea this was, 
but I think the record is very clear and will very clearly show that 
we, the majority in Congress, over the last 5 to 6 years have really 
begun to move forward in a meaningful way to bring steps towards 
comprehensive reform of Social Security. I am proud to join that 
effort. This is good for senior citizens, and it is good for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support us in this endeavor.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, 
bipartisan legislation, to repeal the Social Security retirement 
earnings test. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation which has the 
backing of so many of us on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  This legislation is supported by the Clinton administration. Indeed, 
the President called for repeal of the test more than a year ago.
  As the Subcommittee on Social Security learned during the hearing on 
this bill on February 15, the retirement earnings test is both 
confusing to beneficiaries and difficult to administer. It discourages 
older people from remaining in the workforce and contributing to our 
country's economic growth. It is past time to eliminate this 
disincentive to work.
  The bill repeals the test for workers who attained the normal 
retirement age. Its repeal will allow literally hundreds of thousands 
of Social Security recipients to work without a reduction in their 
benefits. This is an idea whose time has come.
  It is important to note that the repeal does not adversely affect the 
long-term financial health of Social Security.
  This bill shows that members of the committee can work in a 
bipartisan way. I hope this effort remains such.
  Let me stress that passage of H.R. 5 today is not in any way a 
substitute for comprehensive Social Security reform. Congress must 
redouble its efforts to pass legislation to extend solvency of the 
fund.
  Again, the President has proposed legislation that would defeat the 
interest savings earned by paying down the publicly held debt to make 
Social Security stronger. This would extend the solvency of the program 
to 2050.
  There is an old proverb that says that a journey of 1,000 miles 
begins with a single step. We are taking a good first step with the 
passage of H.R. 5 today. It should not, Mr. Speaker, be our last.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, what could be more fair than allowing 
seniors to continue working without losing Social Security benefits?
  Today we are voting on legislation to end the outdated Social 
Security earnings limit. Under this legislation, more than 800,000 
seniors nationwide will have the opportunity to work without seeing 
their Social Security benefits reduced.
  Consider a senior in my district in northern California who is 
between the ages of 65 and 70 and who earns $20,000 a year to 
supplement their Social Security benefits. Under current law, this 
senior will lose $1,000 in Social Security benefits due to the earnings 
limit.
  At a time when our U.S. workforce needs the skills seniors have to 
offer, this disincentive to work makes absolutely no sense. Our seniors 
deserve the freedom to work without being penalized for it.
  This legislation before us today is based on the principles of 
fairness and freedom. Seniors should be treated fairly after paying 
into Social Security all their lives. They should have the freedom to 
work without worrying about losing their benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this legislation is 
fiscally responsible. It does not affect the long-term solvency of the 
Social Security trust fund.
  I commend the President for supporting our position to end the 
outdated earnings limit. Mr. Speaker, let us give all our seniors the 
freedom and the fairness they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank not only the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) but also the members of the Committee on Ways 
and Means for allowing me to speak.
  I rise in support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, a 
legislation that I am proud to be a co-sponsor of and will vote for 
today.
  It seems hard to believe that our tax law actually punishes people 
for working. Yet under the current law, 48,000-plus Texans lose all or 
part of their Social Security payments each month simply because they 
want to work. Now if one can work after one is 70 years old, one is not 
penalized.
  Seniors who have worked hard their whole lives and paid into the 
Social Security system for decades should get their Social Security 
benefits regardless of whether they continue to work. This important 
legislation puts an end to the inequitable treatment of seniors.
  My only concern, Mr. Speaker, is that, hopefully, this is not a step 
toward increasing the retirement age, Congress already did that once, 
instead of using 65. So hopefully this will not happen.
  This is a clean bill. It is not loaded down with other provisions. So 
it does not bust the Federal budget caps that we have talked about.
  Hopefully, this Congress can address other senior citizens issues, 
providing prescription medication for seniors, because allowing them to 
work still may not pay for it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security, for his extraordinary leadership, not only on this 
issue, but in moving forward to make Social Security more solvent.
  Mr. Speaker, today Congress says to seniors, you may choose to work, 
choose to remain part of the productive economy, and choose to share 
your talents. Right now the Social Security system places a higher tax 
penalty on working seniors than on billionaires. We have been sending 
seniors the message that when they hit retirement age that we do not 
want them anymore. We need to change that.
  The earnings limit was created 60 years ago, and it is a relic of 
Depression-era economics that says seniors should make room for younger 
workers. We now know that seniors add more to the workforce and more to 
the economy than they can ever take away. They add their years of 
experience, their expertise, their talents.
  This legislation repeals the earnings limit that unfairly punishes 
seniors who earn more than $17,000 a year. This arbitrary limit serves 
as a barrier to many low- and middle-class seniors who take on a job 
because they need to work in order to improve their quality of life or 
even just to make ends meet. They must not lose Social Security 
benefits that they earn simply because they choose to work.
  The Social Security Administration reports that more than 800,000 
working seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose part or all of their 
Social Security benefits due to this outdated limitation. That is an 
outrage.
  In Pennsylvania, we are sixth in the number of seniors adversely 
affected by the earnings limit; 48,000, over 48,000 Pennsylvania 
seniors are penalized for working.
  I urge my colleagues to join the AARP, join the Subcommittee on 
Social Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and vote in 
favor of this legislation. It is important that Congress protect the 
dignity of retirement and unshackle the creative energies of America's 
seniors.

[[Page 1811]]


  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the leadership 
in working to bring to the floor this very important piece of 
legislation.
  We are focusing on reforming our existing Social Security program, 
correcting an unfairness that impacted 800,000 seniors last year. It 
provides an incentive for those skilled, dedicated committed workers to 
continue to work and enhance our society.
  I want to bring one thing, Mr. Speaker, to the attention of the folks 
here today; and that is this, we have been told by Mr. Greenspan that 
one of the greatest threats to the growth in the economy is we do not 
have enough workers, skilled workers, to produce the supply for the 
demand that is out there.
  This is a very unusual situation that we are in. Thank God for the 
seniors who are going to bail us out, because this will be an incentive 
for them. This is critical. This is something that we need, and we are 
working together finally. By the way, does it not feel good to work 
well on things that America needs?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the genesis of an idea, why a bill 
like this comes into being, sometimes it has not just happened 
overnight. This particular bill, this has been worked on for almost 20 
years.
  I remember the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) when he first came 
to Congress talked about this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) 
tried to push this concept. He brought together economists that shows 
there is really a positive effort when people work. The positives, when 
one does dynamic scoring, really has outshone what the negatives were, 
and that was the payment is out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Then 14 years ago, the 100th Congress decided that this was a project 
that was something that was important for people. For 14 years, we have 
been trying to get the Social Security earnings limit, as we call it, 
changed. We did change it. Twelve years ago, one could earn $10,000; 
and anything over $10,000, every $2 that one earned one lost a dollar 
in one's Social Security. Then we kind of phased it out to $3, and it 
went up from $10,000 to $13,000 to $17,000 today.
  But the fact is, when a senior citizen goes to work at McDonald's or 
starts his or her own little business or, like the lady 10 years ago 
when I bought Valentine flowers for my wife at the florist shop, she 
said, Congressman, I had just came back to work in January. I had 
stopped work last October because I was up against the earnings limit, 
at that time about $10,000. I had to leave my job. Or the seamstress at 
the little corner dress shop that the owner came out to me and said, I 
am going to lose my seamstress because she has reached that earnings 
limit. That was in November just at a busy time.
  So the unfairness of the earnings limit for today's worker certainly 
has been apparent, and it has been apparent for a long time.
  Slowly, but surely, we have been able to move this bill to a point 
where we can pass it and we can give equity to seniors, people who are 
over the age of 65 that do not want to relegate themselves to a rocking 
chair.
  Now, quite frankly, some seniors at age 65 want to retire, and God 
bless them. They should be able if they have had that productive life. 
But the issue is that seniors who maybe did not have to work by the 
sweat of their brow their whole life, that they have unearned income, 
if they have pensions and they have retirement accounts, they were not 
penalized by the earnings test.
  The people that were penalized by the earnings test were people that 
had to go out and earn by the sweat of their brow, people that were 
never to save up, never to have an IRA, never to be able to have a lot 
of money in pensions, people that had to go out and work every day to 
feed their families, to make ends meet. Now they are 65 years of age 
and, all of a sudden, they have a big government tell them, oh, by the 
way, you can get Social Security, but you cannot work anymore.

                              {time}  1145

  ``You cannot work to send your grandchild or child on to college; you 
cannot help earn that tuition for your family and, by the way, you 
cannot have that car that you would like to have to go on vacation 
because you cannot earn more than this amount of money because you are 
going to be penalized.''
  This is wrong. It has been wrong for a long, long time. And 
especially in today's economy, when seniors are valued, because it is 
the seniors that have work ethics. It is the seniors that put in a full 
day's work, and they know the value of work. People like Sears Roebuck 
and J. C. Penney and McDonald's, and on and on, have been telling me 
for over a decade that they want those seniors in their ranks. Because 
not only are they good workers, people they can depend on, but for 
people entering the work force they are great people to train. It is a 
good ethic to pass on.
  So we cannot afford to keep this resource, these people who have 
built this country, these people who want to contribute, even into 
their retirement, to what America is all about, we cannot afford to 
keep them out of this process.
  I want to again say that I urge everybody to vote for this bill. And 
I am very pleased that the President has endorsed this piece of 
legislation. I think it is good, as the gentleman said, that we have 
found something that we can work on, something that lifts the American 
people and gives them a better future.
  I want to also thank certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
for bringing this legislation up, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson), who has worked on this as a pioneer for years, and Jim 
Bunning, who used to be a Member of this body worked on it for years 
and years. There are a lot of people and a lot of history here.
  I think it is time that this bill passes, and I urge everybody to 
stand up and vote ``yes.'' Thank heavens this is here, a time of 
salvation for our seniors.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for 
H.R. 5, to repeal the Social Security earnings limit.
  I am pleased finally to have the opportunity to bring this to a vote. 
After all, House Democrats have long supported repealing the earnings 
limit, but within the framework of comprehensive Social Security 
reform, to protect the Social Security Trust Fund and make sure it is 
there for seniors who need it.
  The Republican tax cut actually held the Social Security earnings 
limit hostage to election year politics. Their proposals would have 
raided the Social Security surplus to fund huge ill-conceived tax cuts, 
of which repeal of the earnings limit was one small part.
  Seniors will not be fooled by a political effort to tie repealing the 
Social Security earnings limit to a tax cut that would have been funded 
by raiding the Social Security surplus.
  I support eliminating the earnings limit. More than that, I support 
being honest with our seniors.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, bipartisan common sense 
legislation to repeal the Social Security earnings test.
  I believe the Social Security earnings test should be eliminated. 
Simply put,

[[Page 1812]]

this provision of the Social Security law has outlived its usefulness. 
It is a relic from another time. It survives only to punish older 
Americans for their productivity.
  Today, most seniors continue to work at least part time after 
retiring. These men and women have some of the most dedicated and 
experienced skills to bring to our work force. And, as a Nation, we 
should be doing everything we can to encourage them to continue to 
contribute their time and their talents, not penalize them for doing 
so.
  H.R. 5 would repeal this limit entirely, effective immediately. It is 
a bill that is worthy of our unanimous support. The President proposed 
it; both parties support it. It is simple, we need to pass H.R. 5.
  We also need to undertake a comprehensive legislative fix that would 
use the projected budget surpluses to extend the life of Social 
Security and Medicare and pay down the debt.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of repeal of the earnings limit for 
Social Security recipients between 65 and 70 years of age.
  When I talk to employers in Maine, many cannot find all the employees 
that they need. Many seniors between 65 and 70 want to work but are 
discouraged from doing so by the Social Security earnings limit. This 
bill will help seniors who want to work and employers who want to hire 
them.
  This bill is also an example of what Republicans and Democrats can do 
when we bring to the floor legislation on which we can agree. In 1998, 
I voted for a Democratic proposal to lift the earnings limit, but I 
pointed out at that time that the competing 1998 Republican plan 
included tax cuts that did not protect Social Security surpluses. That 
was the wrong approach and I opposed it. This bill is the right 
approach, and I am proud to support it.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, to 
repeal the Social Security earnings test. It is long overdue.
  It makes absolutely no sense to penalize older Americans for 
participating in the work force at any time. It makes particularly no 
sense to penalize older Americans at a time when businesses are 
clamoring for qualified workers. Our most experienced workers should 
not be left out of America's work force, out of America's future.
  Many of the seniors in the district I represent in southern Nevada 
have asked me to champion this issue on their behalf. They have so much 
energy, so much talent, so much to continue to give this great country. 
Congress must repeal this obsolete earnings limit and give seniors the 
freedom to work without penalty.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposal and 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for their efforts in this endeavor.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the committee.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, if we are to climb the mountain of tax 
reform, we have to take it one step at a time; and I think the right 
approach is to aim first at individuals and remove the burden of 
excessive taxation and complicated regulations.
  The very first place to start is by scrapping tax penalties. Why hit 
people with a heavier tax burden for being married, for working after 
retirement, or for building a family business or farm? The Senior 
Citizens Freedom to Work Act is an important step to remove one of 
those penalties. It will end the Social Security earnings limit which 
discourage seniors from continuing to work.
  This legislation follows an important first step we took a couple of 
weeks ago with the passage of the marriage penalty tax relief. Finally, 
I hope that we will take a third step, and that is by helping families 
by eliminating the death penalty tax which hammers families, family-
owned businesses and farms.
  Mr. Speaker, let us keep moving forward, making progress in tax 
reform and support H.R. 5.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, 
legislation that is long overdue for our Nation's seniors.
  In 1999, an estimated 1.2 million beneficiaries had some or all of 
their benefits withheld for some portion of the year under the Social 
Security earnings test. About 800,000 beneficiaries lost some or all of 
their benefits under the test as a result of their work at ages 65 to 
69. Additionally, the benefits of 150,000 family members were limited 
or withheld due to the earnings of the primary beneficiary.
  Mr. Speaker, for many seniors, working after the age of 65 is not an 
option. Facing mounting bills for prescription drugs and the increasing 
cost of living, it is something they must do to continue to pay their 
bills. We should be doing everything we can to increase the standard of 
living for these valuable employees.
  Older women in particular face a major hardship from the earnings 
test. The poverty rate for women is higher than the poverty rate 
overall, and women have a greater reliance on their Social Security 
benefits for income. Widows account for 66 percent of aged women in 
poverty. There are 1.2 million aged widows who receive Social Security 
benefits and have had incomes below the poverty line.
  Because women live longer, have lower lifetime earnings and, 
therefore, for dependent on Social Security benefits, they are more 
likely to be working well past the traditional retirement age. We need 
to boost the Social Security earnings for this most vulnerable group of 
seniors rather than putting roadblocks in their path.
  Mr. Speaker, repealing the earnings limit is good for seniors and 
good for employers too. Older workers are exactly the type of employees 
that businesses want. They are dependable, experienced, and have a 
strong work ethic. We should be encouraging these workers to remain in 
the work force instead of trying to force them out. As the number of 
older workers grows, and the need for quality employees becomes more 
acute, we need to take advantage of the experience and skills that 
older workers provide.
  Eliminating the earnings test is not only the fair thing to do for 
working seniors but it will improve the quality and efficiency of the 
Social Security program as well.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill to get rid 
of the Social Security earnings limit. I have been an original 
cosponsor of this bill many times, and I am pleased that we have gotten 
to this point today.
  The need for this bill was really brought home to me last Friday. In 
my district office in Bloomington, Minnesota, a woman named Anna Marie 
came to see me and said she needed to talk to me about a very personal, 
very important matter related to Social Security. When she came into my 
office she was noticeably upset and apprehensive about her situation. 
She sat down and explained to me that $4,000 had been taken out of her 
retirement benefits and she desperately needed that money today. In 
fact, she needed the money for dentures, and if she did not get those 
new dentures she would be placed on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid 
food. The $4,000 she had lost would help her afford these dentures and 
maintain the independence and life-style that she deserves.
  When I told her about what Congress would hopefully do today, about 
the

[[Page 1813]]

bill before us to remove the Social Security earnings limit, she 
started to cry. Her eyes welled up with tears, she clasped her hands 
together and she said, ``Praise Jesus. Thank you, God.''
  Well, this is an important bill in the lives of real people, real 
seniors who need that $4,000, who need the money that has been taken by 
the Federal Government. In voting for it, my colleagues, we help Anna 
Marie, we help many others like her across the country. In voting for 
it, to remove the Social Security earnings limit, we will make a real 
difference in the lives of real seniors, ensuring that not only can 
they keep the money they earn, that they need, but also the 
independence that these seniors deserve.
  So I hope in a bipartisan way we overwhelmingly pass this legislation 
before us today.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of 
H.R. 5 today. This bill is a win-win situation, not just for seniors 
but for the country as a whole as well.
  Clearly, it is to the great advantage of seniors to have the 
opportunity to continue to work, to bring in income and not have their 
Social Security cut.

                              {time}  1200

  It is the right thing to do. Seniors, particularly between 65 and 70, 
still have a lot of bills and a lot of concerns that Social Security 
cannot meet. Allowing them to work is a way to help them make that up. 
But it is also a great benefit to our economy. If there is one thing I 
hear from every business in my district, it is that they cannot find 
enough workers. It does not matter what the job is; they cannot find 
enough people to do the jobs they need.
  Well, we have a wealth of talent out there with great experience, and 
that is our seniors who can fill those jobs and help our economy. This 
bill is fair to seniors, excellent for the economy, and I recommend 
that we support it strongly.
  I also think it is great that it is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. It shows an example of where the House can work together 
to solve real problems for real people in this country, and I am very 
proud to support it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time; and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
and other members of the Committee on Ways and Mean who have put this 
legislation forward. I rise in very strong support of it, the Senior 
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, properly named, as well.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) talked earlier about a 
constituent who had come into his office and talked about the penalty 
that she now lives under, which is about 4,000 a year, and does not 
enable her to do things she needs to do for herself.
  Let me tell my colleagues another story. And there are so many out 
there. Each of us knows people in our districts, maybe in our family, 
who are affected by this. But Marjorie Thompson is a dear friend of 
mine back home. She is a caregiver. She is a nurse. She takes care of 
elderly patients primarily. She is a compassionate, a skilled person 
who has a very strong work ethic and wants to work.
  Marjorie is in her late sixties, and she wants to go to work every 
day. She has come to me and she has said, Rob, should I work? And I 
have to tell her that her marginal tax rate for every additional dollar 
she earns now is about 80 percent. She is getting advice now from 
everybody she knows that say, of course she should not work, not with 
that kind of penalty.
  If we could take away the earnings penalty from her, she would work 
and she would work a full year and she would not stop when she has 
reached that cap.
  People like Marjorie Thompson are needed. They are needed to care for 
our elderly. They are needed throughout our economy. These are people 
that have a lot to contribute. And it is not just economically. They 
have a lot to contribute to our society. They want to work. They want 
to have the dignity and the self-respect that comes with work.
  The last thing that this Congress and this Government should be doing 
is discouraging them from working. We have to remove this penalty from 
the Tax Code. It is overdue.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and others, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who put this forward. And I 
am really looking forward to its being enacted into law.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
repealing the earnings test for Social Security beneficiaries between 
the ages of 65 and 69.
  There is currently a shortage of workers in the U.S. There is no good 
reason for Social Security to punish people who want to work. These 
more mature workers are some of our Nation's most skilled.
  Mr. Speaker, the earnings limit is a relic of the Depression era. 
With Americans living longer, Social Security should not dictate their 
life-style choices to them. This bill is good social policy and good 
economic policy. It does not make sense to punish Americans for working 
when Congress is being lobbied to allow additional workers into the 
country from other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are approaching this in a 
bipartisan manner; and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle can use this year to address broader reform.
  When discussions turn to handling the budget surplus, we must insist 
that the solvency of Social Security and Medicare are addressed first 
and that our older citizens have a prescription drug benefit. We should 
be addressing this now, not adjourning.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Kuykendall).
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation. It is important legislation for our seniors.
  Incredibly, seniors between the ages of 65 and 70 currently lose a 
dollar's worth of Social Security benefits for every $3 earned over 
$17,000. Seniors should not be penalized for working. It is just plain 
unconscionable that the Government would take away these hard-earned 
benefits.
  With our powerful economic growth continuing, the need for skilled 
workers in the workforce is increasing. To have any disincentive to 
work is bad policy. More than 800,000 working senior citizens lose part 
or all of their Social Security benefits due to this obsolete 
provision. And today we can remove the earnings limit.
  I am glad to hear also the President recognizes this unfairness in 
this earnings limit. Ending the earnings limit is good for seniors, 
good for the Nation; and it is the right thing to do. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5, 
legislation to repeal the earnings test for Social Security for the 
ages 65 through 69. It is time to get rid of this penalty, and I am 
glad that we are finally debating this issue.
  The earnings limit originated in the 1930s, but today people remain 
healthy and vigorous longer than they did then; and it makes sense to 
repeal this obsolete and punitive limit.
  It makes no sense to penalize seniors, some who still have to work in 
the workplace, some who want to contribute their skills to the 
workplace, especially in a time when businesses are finding it 
difficult to recruit enough qualified workers to fill the jobs that 
remain vacant.
  The current system is a disincentive for seniors to continue to work, 
and it needs to be changed. And this legislation is long overdue.

[[Page 1814]]

  But there are a lot of other things we also need to work on. We need 
to help retirees by using the surplus to extend Social Security and 
Medicare, to provide a prescription drug plan for all seniors, and to 
lift the limit on outside income for beneficiaries of Social Security.
  I have supported raising the limit in the past, and I support 
repealing it today.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding to 
me this time.
  I want to say to my colleagues that all of us understand the meaning 
of the phrase ``an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.''
  Because of the many, many decades of hard work in all kinds of jobs, 
our older Americans appreciate that adage more than most. They know 
what it means to expend a lifetime of dealing with the uncertainties of 
living paycheck to paycheck. They got up early every morning, went to 
the assembly line, the office, the shop, and came home at night to 
enjoy some time with family and friends.
  When they were rearing their families, they simply hoped to make life 
a little better for their children; and when they reached retirement 
age, they hoped to collect the money they contributed to Social 
Security and a pension. But if they continue to work after 65, they are 
forced to watch the Federal Government continue to try to squeeze every 
cent it can from their paycheck; and to add insult to injury, even 
their Social Security is affected until they turn 70.
  So I proudly stand before my colleagues today because, after decades 
of trying to eliminate the Social Security earnings limit, it is 
finally happening on the floor of the House today. This means that the 
over 42,000 seniors living in my district, many of whom continue 
working beyond the average retirement age, will be getting a little bit 
of a break.
  On behalf of my 8th District constituents, I want to thank and 
commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), for 
his persistence in getting H.R. 5 to the floor for a vote. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), our chairman, who was 
pioneering in this effort years ago. And I want to commend the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), our distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, for all of his efforts. And I commend all of our 
colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, for joining as cosponsors of a bill 
that my colleagues, I know, will want to unanimously support and 
eliminate this obscene tax.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today that H.R. 5 is 
moving.
  I have been in Congress for several years now, and this is a piece of 
legislation that I have felt like should have been passed many years 
ago. And I know senior citizens that have quit work simply because the 
penalty was too high.
  Now they will be able, after this legislation passes the House and 
Senate and signed by the President, and I expect it all to happen this 
year and very soon now, where senior citizens will have an opportunity 
to make some decisions and whereby they can have some structure in 
their lives, where they can have some peace of mind, knowing that if 
they want to continue to work, and many of them want to do that, they 
will be able to accomplish those goals and objectives for themselves 
and their families.
  It is estimated that, under current law, about 4 percent of Social 
Security recipients will exceed the $17,000 earnings limit and will 
have the benefits reduced by an average of $8,154. That does not have 
to happen now with this legislation.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) 
and in support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
  The Members of this body have different philosophies about the role 
of government. Some want an expansive, activist government. Others, 
like myself, believe that government should have a much more limited 
role. But I think everyone agrees that the Government should not 
discourage hard work and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, we do just 
that. And nowhere is this more evident than with the so-called Social 
Security earnings limit.
  Incredibly, more than 800,000 working seniors between the ages of 65 
and 69 lose part or all of their Social Security benefits simply 
because they choose to work in their golden years. This is wrong.
  No matter what the rationale for the earnings limit was during the 
Great Depression, this is the year 2000. We should not stand for a Tax 
Code that penalizes hard work and responsibility.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to 
Work Act.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to say how glad I am that today we 
have an opportunity to vote to repeal the earnings test for Social 
Security beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69. This action is 
long overdue.
  The earnings limit originated in the 1930s when the Social Security 
program was started during the Depression, and it remains despite the 
vast changes in the economy and the lives of senior citizens that have 
taken place over the last 60 years.
  It makes no sense to penalize seniors for participating in the 
workplace, especially at a time when businesses cannot find enough 
qualified workers to fill jobs that remain vacant. People remain 
healthy and vigorous longer than they did in the 1930s. So it makes 
perfect sense to repeal this obsolete and punitive limit.
  By passing this bill, seniors who need or want to work can now do so 
without the fear of being punished by an outdated law.
  I am glad that today we, both sides of the aisle, can all be on the 
same page and finally take this action. Let us vote ``yes'' to pass 
H.R. 5.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
California for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I join in the parade of Members who support this 
legislation. Previously, this proposal to lift the earnings limit has 
been used as a partisan Trojan horse. It included tax cuts that were 
controversial, and it would have required raiding the Social Security 
trust fund.
  Today we have a balanced budget, we are not engaged in a raid on the 
Social Security trust fund, and we can approve this proposal on its 
merits. It is not a Trojan horse. It is not accompanied by other 
controversial Internal Revenue Code changes.
  Strong policy considerations support this legislation. They have been 
amply stated by previous speakers. I would just like to say them 
briefly: fairness to seniors who wish to work. We should encourage a 
work ethics. Two, it is budget neutral. This proposal does not cost 
money. Three, we have a labor shortage. We need additional workers in 
America.

                              {time}  1215

  I am pleased to join in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 5, the 
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. Under current law, seniors who 
earn more than $17,000 per year are penalized $1 for every $3 of 
additional earnings. This is wrong. We should not penalize hard work. 
It makes no sense to penalize seniors who are participating in our work 
force, especially at a time when

[[Page 1815]]

we cannot find enough workers to fill a burgeoning economy.
  I have heard from many small businesses in my district that are very 
excited about the possibility of hiring additional workers, workers who 
have solid work values, who are responsible, experienced and eager to 
fill the positions which are currently available.
  As we vote on this important bipartisan legislation today, I want to 
encourage my colleagues to continue work in assisting our seniors to 
retire so they are not forced to work. However, I strongly believe that 
those who choose to work should not be penalized. And this bill solves 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this long-needed legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation and encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I have 
been a strong supporter of legislation to repeal the earnings limit for 
several years. In fact, repeal of the earnings limit was part of the 
comprehensive Social Security reform package that I introduced, along 
with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in 1998.
  Our legislation though contained several other provisions that 
rewarded individuals who continued to work after retirement age. While 
I am disappointed that Congress is not acting on the other parts of our 
proposal to strengthen Social Security, I am very pleased that this 
part of our legislation is going to be enacted today.
  Senior citizens are some of our most valued workers, contributing a 
wealth of experience that can be gained only through years of dedicated 
service. For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement of 
former Senator Bentsen that discouraging seniors citizen from working 
is ``like keeping your best hitters on the bench.''
  Our society should not overlook the contribution of our seniors. 
Unfortunately, press reports suggest that some in the Republican party 
intend to use this vote on the earnings limit for partisan political 
purposes. I would ask a reconsideration of those who choose to do that.
  As Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on comprehensive 
Social Security reform, I am extremely disappointed by these reports 
and hope that the Republican leadership will repudiate these tactics. 
The suggestions that Democrats have opposed repeal of the Social 
Security earnings limit are completely false.
  Democrats have supported repeal of the Social Security earnings limit 
as part of a comprehensive legislation that keeps Social Security 
strong for those currently retired or close to it, and everyone knows 
that.
  In fact, the reported line of criticism being suggested by some 
actually raises questions about their commitment to the integrity of 
the Social Security trust fund. The votes being cited to criticize 
Democrats were on bills that would have raided the Social Security 
surplus to fund tax cuts, in which repeal of the earnings limit was one 
small part.
  Seniors will not be fooled by a political effort to use the issue of 
repealing the Social Security earnings limit to advocate a tax cut that 
would have been funded by raiding the Social Security surplus.
  The past votes that some Republicans seek to exploit for political 
purposes were on bills that would have threatened the integrity of the 
Social Security trust fund. The $80 billion tax cut considered by the 
House in the fall of 1998 that included repeal of the Social Security 
earnings limit would have been funded entirely out of the Social 
Security surplus.
  The Republican leadership at that time did not even allow a vote on 
the Stenholm-Neumann amendment, which provided that the tax cuts could 
not be funded with a Social Security surplus. Likewise, the tax bill 
considered by the House last year would have dipped into the Social 
Security surplus by more than $70 billion and would have exploded in 
costs at the same time the Social Security system is projected to begin 
running shortfalls.
  Let us use today to set aside the bipartisanship. Let us recognize 
that today we are reaching out in a bipartisan way in order to do what 
everyone has agreed. While I am critical of the fact we are not doing 
more, we accept this today, let us put the partisanship aside. Let us 
continue to reach out for a long-term solution for Social Security.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a respected member of the committee.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the seniors and near seniors in 
the Congressional district that I represent, I rise today in 
enthusiastic support of H.R. 5, the Seniors Citizens' Freedom to Work 
Act.
  The Social Security earnings limit is another aspect of a 60-year old 
Social Security system that no longer applies to modern society. These 
days seniors are living longer. They are healthier, and yet too many of 
our Nation's best workers are sitting in rocking chairs.
  We need their strength. We need their experience in our communities. 
And young people starting new jobs need their example, their example of 
the value of work and the discipline of work. Unfortunately, by denying 
retirement benefits for those who choose to work, Social Security 
penalizes seniors who want to be productive and teach the values of 
hard work to younger generations.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is also very important to women who, 75 
percent of the time, live longer than their spouses. And they ought to 
be able to have the peace of mind that they can supplement their 
retirement earnings if they wish without being penalized.
  In Washington State alone, more than 13,000 seniors have been forced 
to choose between keeping the job they love or losing the retirement 
income for which they worked all their lives. This is wrong. It also 
keeps an intelligent and productive part of our work force at home.
  Seniors who are currently retired have been called the greatest 
generation, for the sacrifices they made in defending freedom and 
building America into the world's only remaining superpower. It is time 
that we honor the contributions to America, their contributions, by 
allowing them to work, if they wish, and to give one of the most 
precious gifts of all, that they can offer their work ethic.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for persevering in this cause. I 
want to urge my colleagues to support this bill and the President to 
sign it.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking the first step towards 
strengthening retirement security for all seniors and moving closer to 
putting Social Security on a firmer footing for the rest of the 
century. This time, we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.
  I am gratified that Republicans are joining with us to repeal the 
earnings test for Social Security. This is truly a bipartisan effort. 
Democrats have overwhelmingly voted three times in recent years to 
raise the limit and President Clinton has requested repealing this 
earnings limit in his last two budgets. The sooner we send this to his 
desk, the faster we will be able to deliver this relief to seniors who 
want to continue making a real contribution to our society and our 
economy.
  Unlike a Republican attempt to raise the limit in 1998, the bill we 
debate today does not hurt the long-term solvency of Social Security to 
do so. This reform is long overdue. It is about time that we stand up 
for America's seniors.
  According to Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, we are beginning to 
suffer from a serious worker shortage that threatens our economic 
expansion. This bill will play a major role in protecting our economic 
gains of the last 7 years. It will not only help raise the standard of 
living for many of our seniors but it will also help us keep the 
strongest economic growth of our lifetime on track by keeping a 
generation of skilled workers in the economy.

[[Page 1816]]

  I met with a number of small business owners in South County St. 
Louis in my district this past weekend and they talked about their need 
to hire workers over the age of 65 because they are having such trouble 
finding skilled workers for jobs that are available right now. This 
bill will encourage seniors to return to the workplace and enable 
business owners to fill vacant jobs.
  This earnings limit is a relic of the great depression when we 
experienced double-digit unemployment among young people. The limit 
does not make any sense in the year 2000. It needs to be relegated to 
the dustbin of economic history. This is just the first step towards 
strengthening retirement security for all seniors. Now it is time to 
take the next step, using the surplus to extend the life of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Today, we are voting to allow working seniors to fully enjoy their 
Social Security benefit, but that very benefit will be in danger if 
Republicans do not join with Democrats to take immediate action to 
strengthen the Social Security trust fund with an infusion of financial 
support.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will join us over the next several 
months in using the surplus to strengthen both Social Security and 
Medicare. This bill shows that Democrats and Republicans can work 
together to rebuild and build retirement security. I hope that we can 
build on this foundation and work together to put Social Security and 
Medicare on a sound financial footing well into the next century.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to 
Work Act. This bill is simple and straightforward, removing the 
earnings limit for working seniors receiving Social Security. Seniors 
aged 65 to 69 who have chosen to continue to work have had their Social 
Security benefits reduced by $1 for every $3 earned when their total 
earnings went over $17,000 annually.
  The 104th Congress made a long needed change, raising the annual 
earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002. More needed to be done on 
this issue. Ever since coming to Washington in the 93rd Congress, I 
have introduced legislation to either raise the earnings limit or 
eliminate it altogether. These earnings limits have discouraged seniors 
from working and diminished their potential productivity, conveying a 
message that seniors have nothing to contribute and are better off not 
working in the workforce. It is gratifying that the President has 
stated his support for the elimination of the earnings limit, and I 
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for their attention to this important issue.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in supporting this timely, 
important senior legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' 
Freedom to Work Act. The elimination of the Social Security earnings 
limit is a reform that is long overdue.
  Under the current system, senior citizens are forced to choose 
between the loss of their Social Security benefits and dropping out of 
the workforce. What a terrible message to send to our seniors that 
their work is not valued. With their wealth of information and 
experience, senior citizens are a truly vital part of the stability of 
our workforce and the development of the workforce of tomorrow.
  The current limit takes away the benefits from those who have 
rightfully earned them through a lifetime of hard work. We should not 
be punishing our senior citizens for continuing to work but, rather, 
encouraging them. That is just common sense.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding 
me this time, and I want to commend him for his leadership on this 
very, very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' 
Freedom to Work Act. This Social Security earnings limit is wrong and 
archaic. Why penalize able-bodied senior Americans who can work? At a 
time when our economy is in need of an experienced workforce, we should 
not be turning our backs on seniors who have valuable experience and 
skills.
  The worst part of the earnings limit is that it penalizes poor senior 
citizens. Mr. Speaker, not every senior who retires has private 
pensions to supplement their Social Security benefits.

                              {time}  1230

  Health costs are rising; prescription drugs are unattainable. Seniors 
need to work to supplement their Social Security benefits. No longer 
should we force seniors to choose between food and medicine. Do not 
deny our seniors their basic rights. We must do away with this archaic 
earnings limit which deprives our seniors of their earned benefits.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose)
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5. I came to 
this Congress recently following in the great footsteps of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Sacramento, California (Mr. Matsui), and 
I want to specifically applaud the fact that after 40 years of 
Democratic majority here and 6 years of Republican majority, we finally 
have been able to move a bill out of the House, hopefully on to the 
Senate, and then to the President for signature.
  This particular issue, where we in effect tax the ability of our 
seniors to contribute to our workforce disproportionately, has needed 
to be changed since it was first passed in the Depression. There is no 
argument about that. There is no getting around that fact.
  Again, we spent 40 years under the tutelage of one party, and now 6 
years we have been at it here. We finally have agreement, and I am 
happy to be part of this. This is one of the things I campaigned on, to 
try and get this tax off the backs of our seniors. I welcome my friends 
on the other side to this. I am very, very pleased to be here with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) in this effort.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would echo the comments just made by my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). It is fun for a change to 
participate in a debate on a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support, 
improving the Social Security program that we have for our seniors.
  It is time we lift the earnings limit. We need to do this as part of 
a multifaceted approach at improving income in retirement years. This 
approach needs to include other activity by this Congress, activity 
where hopefully we would come together also in a bipartisan way to 
strengthen Social Security, making certain that it is going to be there 
for the long run, and coming together in a bipartisan way to help 
additional employers offer retirement savings opportunities for their 
workplace. Presently, only half the workers have retirement savings at 
work. We need to do better, and there are strategies introduced and 
supported by Members of both parties to get this done as well.
  Finally, we need to come together to add additional savings 
incentives, targeted specifically at middle-income and lower-income 
households, so that they might save for retirement.
  But back to today's bill. Today's bill really is for those that hit 
retirement years without enough savings already accrued. Those years, 
65 to 70, represent an important last opportunity to get some 
additional income, even while the Social Security checks start coming, 
so that they might build that nest egg, to meet their needs, to keep 
them comfortable as they go on.

[[Page 1817]]

  Do you know that today someone reaching the age of 65 has an 
additional 15 years of life expectancy if they are a male, and 19 years 
if they are a female? Surely there are substantial needs for a 
retirement nest egg in light of that kind of life-span opportunity. In 
addition, we know that people reaching the age of 65 today are 
healthier, more engaged and want to work than ever before; and we ought 
to give them that opportunity.
  Additionally, we know that in light of our strong economy, the needs 
in the workforce are intense, and this potential source of labor can 
help employer after employer, right across the country.
  In my own State, the State of North Dakota, people over the age of 60 
represent 18 percent of our population. Clearly we need their 
participation. That is important today, but it is only going to grow 
more important, because this over-60 segment will swell by 60 percent 
in North Dakota by the year 2025. Quite frankly, I do not know how we 
will keep our schools going. I do not know how we will keep some of the 
businesses going if we do not have workers in this age span, 65 to 70, 
participating if they want to in the workforce without the absolutely 
ruinous penalty presented by the tax on earnings today.
  For every reason I have mentioned, I urge a unanimous vote on this. 
What a pleasure it is to have this bipartisan achievement.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, today this House of Representatives will take 
a real step toward tax reform for America's working retirees. By 
repealing the so-called Social Security earnings test, we are doing 
away with an outdated law that affects over 800,000 seniors who have 
been denied the needed income to survive in their golden years.
  Created in the Depression to encourage older workers to move out of 
the job market, the earnings limit is an antiquated solution to a 
problem that no longer exists. Many of today's seniors want to take 
part in this economic boom, but are penalized $1 in Social Security 
benefits for every $3 they earn beyond $17,000. My State of California 
is hit hardest by the earnings test, affecting over 161,000 seniors. 
When seniors are denied the opportunity to work and governments are 
denied income taxes generated by seniors working, we all lose.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long believed the outright repeal of this law was 
the right thing to do, and I am pleased to have an opportunity today to 
be part of the team that will send the bill to the Senate and the 
President that lowers the tax burden for so many working retirees.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate my two 
friends, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), for their fine work in bringing this forward 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have the chance to take action to repeal the 
Social Security earnings limit, a law so outdated few can remember how 
it ever got on the books.
  What is the Social Security earnings limit? Well, ask any senior and 
they will tell you the earning limit is a Catch-22 of the Social 
Security system. It is a law that actually punishes older people for 
working. In fact, it forces them, literally forces them, to become more 
dependent on Social Security than they need to be.
  Now, why would anybody want a law like that? Well, Mr. Speaker, I do 
not know any of us who want a law like that, and it is time for a 
change. That is why we are repealing it today.
  Our message for every American, no matter how old, ought to be that 
if you want a job and you are able to do a job, by God, this government 
is never going to try to stop you from getting a job.
  We are voting to repeal the earnings limit because in this incredible 
economy, there is more than enough work that needs to be done, and 
older Americans may be just some of the people who can do it and do it 
well in a labor market that is struggling for good, competent, 
qualified people.
  We are voting to repeal the earnings limit not only because we 
believe older people ought to have the right to earn higher incomes, 
but because they deserve the opportunity to live richer lives, lives 
made better by the opportunity to join the world of work. But, Mr. 
Speaker, the truth is that it is not just seniors who win if we repeal 
this foolish law; we all win. We all win because this Nation needs the 
experience, the skill and the maturity of older people that they can 
bring to the American workplace.
  Older Americans today are one of this Nation's greatest resources. It 
is high time we take advantage of it. This is a win-win proposition for 
America.
  Again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for bringing this to the 
floor.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, back in the 1930s the reason for starting the earnings 
test the Democrats said it was necessary to allow younger workers to 
work. Today what we have is a shortage of qualified and experienced 
workers, so it is very appropriate that we are getting around to 
enacting this legislation.
  I might point out I am glad to see the minority party supports this 
piece of legislation. For almost 4 decades the Democratic party did not 
seem to want to initiate and to pass this legislation; and the chairman 
here, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and others on this side, 
worked so hard to try and pass this. So this is a great day, to see the 
folks on the other side of the aisle say let's pass it by unanimous 
agreement.
  There is no good reason, of course. There is no longer a reason for 
this antiquated law to be on the books. It is discriminatory.
  So I support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. I am an 
original cosponsor of it. It is a law we have to be very joyful this 
afternoon for, because it is a law that is needed.
  Mr. Speaker, since the Social Security program was created in 1935, 
it has always included an earnings test. There have been many efforts 
through the years to eliminate the earnings test, but none were 
successful.
  Back in the 1930's the reason given for starting the earnings test 
was to ``open up jobs'' for younger workers. What we are currently 
experiencing is a shortage of qualified and experienced workers. The 
time to act is now.
  In 1996 I voted to increase the earnings limit for seniors who chose 
to continue working. We were able to increase the earnings limit for 
those aged 65-69 to $30,000 by the year 2002. At the time this 
legislation was passed, a working senior who reached $11,280 in earned 
income lost $1 in Social Security for each $3 earned thereafter. That's 
a marginal tax rate of 33%! That's a high price to pay for merely 
wanting to work.
  Let's take a look at how the current law affects our nation's seniors 
who are receiving Social Security benefits and also working. This year 
beneficiaries aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 without being 
penalized. They lose one dollar for every three of earnings that exceed 
this limit.
  Beneficiaries aged 62-64, those individuals who retire early, are 
allowed to earn up to $10,080 this year without a penalty. They lose 
one dollar of Social Security benefits for every two dollars they earn 
above the imposed limit. While the measure we passed in 1996 made vast 
improvements to the earnings test, our real goal at that time was to 
repeal the law outright. I believe that we will be successful this time 
around.
  What's wrong with giving elderly workers who either want to work or 
must work in order to maintain a decent lifestyle the ability to do so. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 5 that would repeal the Social 
Security earnings test entirely. I have long been a proponent of 
repealing this outdated provision and shall continue to support such 
proposals until we succeed in changing this law.
  The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats Social Security benefits 
less like a pension and more like welfare. It represents a Social 
Security bias in favor of unearned income over earned income.
  It is effectively a mandatory retirement mechanism our country no 
longer accepts or

[[Page 1818]]

needs. It precludes greater flexibility for the elderly worker and also 
prevents America's full use of eager, experienced and educated elderly 
workers. Finally, it deprives the U.S. Economy of the additional income 
tax which would be generated by the elderly workers.
  There is no good reason to keep this antiquated and discriminatory 
law in existence any longer. I support swift passage of the Senior 
Citizen's Freedom to Work Act and call upon my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to vote for this very important and long overdue change in 
the law.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and join my colleagues in 
strong support of this legislation, and I commend the leadership of 
this House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui). It is a good day when we can be so united 
in a bipartisan way to end an unfair tax on our working seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, many seniors work because they need to. They should not 
be penalized for trying to put food on their table. They should be 
supported. Seniors in my district have been telling me this is 
something that they need. Some seniors work because they want to. They 
should not be penalized for remaining active and involved. These 
seniors should be supported as well. Our country is the richer for it.
  It is time to act in this way. Today we will have, I hope, unanimous 
support to remove this onerous burden on working seniors and end the 
earnings limit. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago this House voted to right a wrong. Most 
of us agree it is unfair for a married couple to be penalized by the 
Federal Government just simply because they are married, so we passed 
legislation to fix that unfairness. Today it is time to fix another 
long-standing unfairness, the Social Security earnings limit.
  Mr. Speaker, it is about time. For too long we have penalized our 
most experienced workers, created disincentives for them to work, 
oftentimes when their employers need their expertise the most. No 
American should be penalized for their desire to work and contribute to 
the economy and strength of our country, least of all our seniors.
  In 1987, my class in Congress, the Republican members of my class, 
voted to take this on as a project, to try to eliminate the earnings 
limit. We met with Dan Rostenkowski. I think it was the only time he 
ever spoke to me, but we met with Dan Rostenkowski, and he said, ``No, 
we won't do it.'' So over the years we have picked away at it with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer) and various ones, and with their help picked away at it and 
made it better. But today is a chance to get rid of it.
  For the sake of simple fairness, it is time for this body to 
eliminate the earnings limit. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Dan Rostenkowski would not do it. He is a 
Democrat. I am embarrassed by it.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw). I want to commend the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui).
  But, Mr. Speaker, this is not enough. Everybody is reaching into that 
Social Security trust fund and they are raiding it. I have a bill and 
it calls for a constitutional amendment, and it says you cannot touch 
the Social Security trust fund. It can only be used for Social Security 
and Medicare. If we pass that, we would have enough money to provide 
health insurance for every American.
  But I want to pay tribute to the Republican Party today. Rostenkowski 
did not do it, Rostenkowski would not do it, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) 
did it. But the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) deserve a lot of credit for making 
it happen as well.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I would like to add my applause and appreciation to the gentleman 
from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw), 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), for 
their vision.
  This bill spells relief. I have spent some time with seniors, most of 
us do as we visit our senior citizen centers, as we work with seniors 
in our respective religious communities, as we work with seniors as our 
neighbors.
  I can actually say that the retirement earnings test keeps good 
talent away from the job market. This legislation will allow thousands 
of social security recipients to work without a reduction in their 
benefits, to work in child care, to work in volunteer programs, after-
school programs.
  In fact, as I visited the Latino Learning Center and their Senior 
Citizen Center, they were making crafts. Although that is not 
employment per se, it still might have impacted their income by way of 
the income being attributable to each individual from the crafts that 
they made.
  The repealing of this will in fact increase work incentives; will put 
good, strong, valued seniors in the workplace, and will add to the 
value of what they have already given to the workplace and this Nation. 
Repealing the RET will not affect social security's finances over the 
long run, and in particular, repealing the RET will make the social 
security program easier and less expensive to administer.
  This is long overdue. As I have said when I have come to the floor 
before, this spells relief. It is relief for seniors, for the social 
security program, for the community where these valuable seniors can be 
out and about in the work force contributing to this Nation as they 
have done in the past.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this 
legislation. It is a bill we have worked on for many years.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just again would like to thank 
Members for the bipartisan atmosphere that occurs on the floor of the 
House, as it did in subcommittee and in the full committee. The fact 
that we have moved this bill in an expedited fashion certainly means 
that we should get it to the President in a timely fashion so that it 
will become law in the year 2000. Again, this is a much needed change 
in the social security system.
  I might just add, just so there is no misunderstanding, that this 
will have a $23 billion revenue loss out of the social security system 
over the next 10 years. But over the life of the social security system 
itself, because of the delayed credit, it will have no impact on the 
solvency of the social security system, so this has no impact on the 
social security system nor on the Medicare system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for the way he has handled this, not only on the floor, but 
certainly, as the ranking member of the subcommittee on Social 
Security.
  It gives me an opportunity to once again congratulate my long and 
dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who showed an 
interest in

[[Page 1819]]

Social Security generally, and this type of cooperation between our 
parties still gives me some ray of hope, no matter how small that 
glimmer may be, as we move forward on our political calendar, that 
there are many other things that we can accomplish in working together.
  For those people who believe that it is in our best interest to have 
confrontation and do nothing, I suggest that at the polling places, 
both Democrats and Republicans may suffer. It seems to me that there 
have been enough suggestions made by the President that Republicans can 
pick and choose those that they feel comfortable with, those that they 
think are in the best interests of the people of this great country, 
and to be able to work with us to do it.
  This is a classic example of the leadership of the chairman and the 
subcommittee chairman, in working with us so that we can get things 
done. I laud the Members for this effort, and I look forward to working 
with them on other issues that remain within the budget, as this has, 
that do not invite and encourage a veto, but those things that we know 
that we can work out our differences on, not only on both sides of the 
aisle but also on Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an observation which I think is 
something that all of us have sort of made reference to, but not 
particularly in this regard. Some who are looking on today, tuning in 
on C-Span, probably think they have the wrong channel.
  This has been, I think, a real landmark in what we can accomplish in 
this Congress by working together.
  My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and we use 
that phrase a little flip around here, because when we refer to someone 
as our good friend, that is about the time we are about to drop a 
hammer on them, but we are good friends. We are very good friends. We 
have been for many years, as I am with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui).
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) I think has been an incredible 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we have brought things 
together that have made a real difference, and we do come together on 
things that we can politically agree upon.
  There should be no disagreement in this country, no disagreement, 
that people who work their entire working lives, when they reach 
retirement age, just simply because they have to work beyond that or 
just simply want to work beyond that, that they should not be 
penalized. We agree on that. We ought to constantly look out and reach 
out for things that we agree upon, because it is so important to such 
an important segment of our population. It is so important.
  So this bill is going to pass. I am going to ask for a recorded vote, 
because I want all the Members to have the opportunity to step forward 
on the Democrat and the Republican side and cast their vote, a recorded 
vote, to say they are in favor of American seniors. They are working 
with us, and we are working together to make a better life for the 
senior citizens of the country.
  This bill takes effect on January 1 of the year 2000. That means 
exactly 2 months ago this bill comes into effect. The senior citizens 
of this country will enjoy the fruits and labor of what we have started 
here today.
  I am pleased to say that the President is with us. Yesterday, while 
we were marking this bill up in the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
President was in Miami Beach doing a fundraiser for my opponent at a 
cocktail party. In fact, I thought it was rather ironic, because it was 
taking place at the exact time we were voting on this bill.
  That is the way the system works. There is nothing wrong with that. 
There is nothing wrong with Democrat presidents supporting Democrat 
candidates and Republican presidents supporting Republican candidates.
  I will tell the Members that I would certainly guess, and as 
tradition has it, just as we did in welfare reform and other pieces of 
meaningful legislation that has come out of this Congress, that the 
President will invite the Republicans down to take part in the bill's 
signing. That is the way it should be.
  So many people here can take credit for what is going on here today. 
I am very pleased and proud that it happens during the Republican 
majority, but we have come together. We have locked away the Social 
Security surplus so we are no longer spending it. This makes America's 
great pension program available for the seniors without penalty.
  This is a wonderful thing that has happened. This country has gone 
through a great transition, and when it comes to working together to 
make things happen, the best of us comes out when we work together.
  I want to publicly thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and of course, my chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for 
the work that they did in bringing this thing together. This is truly a 
bipartisan effort. It is truly in the best tradition of the American 
democracy.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior 
Citizens Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social 
Security ``earnings limitations.'' During a time when an increasing 
number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past 
retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced 
workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the 
federal government does just that by deducting a portion of seniors' 
monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn 
income above an arbitrary government-set level.
  When the government takes money every month from people's paychecks 
for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money 
will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep 
that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to 
work.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to remaining in 
the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of 
the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are 
discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social 
Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any 
citizen from seeking or holding productive employment.
  The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the fact 
that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things other than 
paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first bill I 
introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security Preservation 
Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending Social Security 
funds on anything other than paying Social Security pensions.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support for 
the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the ``earnings 
limitation'' will help ensure that America's seniors can continue to 
enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their ``golden years.'' I also 
urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the Social Security 
Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 
219).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for 
H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This long 
overdue measure would allow persons aged 65 through 69 to continue 
working without losing some of their Social Security benefits.
  Today, our seniors are more healthy and vigorous than ever. Many 
seniors who choose to continue to work find that working greatly 
enhances their retirement years. They are living longer and often 
finding that they either need or want to work well beyond traditional 
retirement age. Further, the time has come to stop penalizing seniors 
who need to keep working to supplement their Social Security incomes.
  This legislation, which I cosponsored, would do away with this 
antiquated and obsolete punitive limit to Social Security payments. 
Under current law, senior citizens in this age group lose $1 in Social 
Security benefits for every $3 they earn each year above a certain 
level, which is $17,000 this year. The earnings test was designed 
during the Great Depression to encourage older workers to leave the 
workforce to create more jobs for younger workers. Today, we are 
experiencing a labor shortage, not a surplus. With our economy's 
emphasis

[[Page 1820]]

on increased productivity, older workers have the years of experience 
and work ethic that are in great demand.
  It is estimated that initially about 600,000 seniors would be 
affected by the elimination of the earnings test. According to the 
Social Security Administration, H.R. 5 will increase Social Security 
outlays by $17 billion over 5 years and $26 billion over 10 years. 
However, in the long term, the measure's cost would be negligible 
because of offsetting effects because retirees would no longer receive 
delayed retirement credits, which under current law compensate for the 
benefits lost to the earnings test applied to workers above the full 
retirement age, and the savings from this would offset the cost from 
eliminating the earnings test.
  Lifting the limit on outside income for beneficiaries of retirement 
security is a key component of my initiatives to extend the life of 
Social Security and Medicare. H.R. 5 is crucial as part of a broader 
plan that uses the opportunity of a surplus to extend the life of 
Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt.
  In 1998, the Republican leadership brought an increase in the 
earnings limit to the floor attached to a tax bill that would have been 
financed by borrowing directly from the Social Security Trust Fund. I 
opposed this bill funded by the Social Security surplus, and supported 
an alternative that provided for an increase in the Social Security 
earnings limit identical to the one in the Republican bill, but not 
from the Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, the bill failed to be 
enacted.
  H.R. 5 builds upon a bipartisan measure enacted in 1996 which I 
supported, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act (H.R. 3136), which 
provided for increases in the amounts of allowable earnings under the 
Social Security earnings limit for individuals who have attained 
retirement age. Now we are going a step further and eliminating the cap 
altogether. This is the right policy at the right time.
  The earnings test is a relic of the Great Depression and the time has 
come to terminate it. The test is a severe disincentive for older 
people to work. Not only do older workers suffer a reduction in their 
standard of living because of the test, the nation's economy loses 
valuable experience and skills as well.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Senior 
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
  This important legislation is long overdue. The earnings limit is a 
relic of an era when America was in a state of extreme economic 
despair. Mr. Speaker, today we are experiencing unprecedented 
prosperity. Our economy is booming. Our unemployment rate is lower than 
it has been in 30 years. It just doesn't make sense to discourage our 
nation's seniors from continuing to contribute to our economy by 
reducing their Social Security benefits.
  Many of the seniors in my home state of Illinois continue to 
contribute to their communities through hard work. Repealing the 
earnings limit will have a very real impact on these seniors. Instead 
of being punished for their participation in the workforce, seniors 
should be encouraged to remain working. Eliminating the earnings test 
makes sense. It will be good for our seniors and good for our economy. 
And most importantly, we can do it without jeopardizing the future of 
Social Security. It is something that all of us, on both sides of the 
aisle, should be able to agree on.
  But, once again, Republicans are playing politics with the issues 
that affect our nation's seniors the most. They are clamoring to point 
fingers at Democrats who have long been in support of amending the 
archaic earnings limit. But our nation's seniors cannot be fooled. 
Democrats support repealing the earnings limit while protecting the 
integrity of Social Security.
  In the 105th Congress, the Republicans brought an increase of the 
earning limits to the floor but attached it to a risky tax cut package 
that would have put Social Security in severe jeopardy. Democrats 
strongly opposed that bill and offered a measure to raise the earnings 
limit and make the remaining tax cuts contingent on protecting the 
solvency of Social Security. This Democratic alternative was a 
responsible tax cut package that did not raid the Social Security Trust 
Fund. Not one Republican voted for this measure. This is just one of 
many cases that demonstrates who is on the side of seniors in this 
fight.
  We must stop the finger pointing and come together to protect Social 
Security for generations to come. This is not the time for politics as 
usual. The livelihood of our nation's senior citizens is at stake.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000.
  Under current law, over 8,000 Kansas seniors lose some or all of 
their Social Security benefits due to the Social Security earnings 
limit because they choose to continue to work. Seniors aged 65 to 69 
have $1 of their benefits reduced for every $3 they earn over the 
current earnings limit of $17,000. Simply, current law penalizes 
seniors for working. I do not believe it is fair to punish those 
seniors who want or need to participate in the workforce by having this 
disincentive to work.
  Eliminating the earnings limit is not only fair for working seniors, 
it will improve the quality and efficiency of Social Security since the 
program will be easier and less expensive to administer. Furthermore, 
repealing the Social Security earnings limit is fiscally responsible. 
While the bill would increase Social Security spending by $22.7 billion 
over the next 10 years, the resulting lower long-term benefit payments 
will more than offset the costs.
  Mr. Speaker, by allowing seniors who want to work to retain their 
benefits, Congress will take an important step towards strengthening 
retirement security for all seniors. This step, however, should not be 
our last. I urge my colleagues to begin working with me, in the same 
bipartisan manner that we worked on today's bill, to put Social 
Security on a firm financial footing for future generations. We need to 
build on today's success by dedicating a substantial portion of the 
budget surplus to pay down debt and strengthen Social Security and 
Medicare.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5 and to join me in the larger 
challenge of strengthening Social Security and Medicare for our seniors 
and for generations of future retirees.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today, we take an important step forward 
in addressing a Social Security inequity that is an injustice to 
working seniors. Under the Social Security Earnings Limit, 
beneficiaries aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 a year--but for every 
$3 earned over this amount $1 of benefits is lost.
  The cap has always been one of the most unpopular parts of the Social 
Security program--and for good reason. It penalizes older people for 
working--and deprives the nation of the talent of working seniors. It's 
time to get rid of it, once and for all.
  The earnings cap is a relic of the Great Depression, when concern 
over massive joblessness led to a perception that retirees should be 
discouraged from rejoining the workforce. Today, people are living 
longer and working longer--and are as entitled as the rest of us to 
fair wages for their labor.
  At a time when unemployment is at a 30-year low and we face acute 
labor shortages, this Depression-era work disincentive for seniors no 
longer makes sense.
  Older Americans possess enormous talent and experience. It boggles 
the mind why we'd want to maintain disincentives for them to work. The 
earnings test not only erodes seniors' standards of living, but also 
costs the nation valuable skills in the workforce, as well as tax 
revenue generated by this income.
  Retirees who receive income from other sources such as pensions or 
capital gains do not have any benefits reduced. Why should income from 
pensions or investments be treated more favorably than earned income?
  I received a letter last summer from a retiree from my home town--
Quincy, Massachusetts. He wrote: ``I would like to retire with dignity 
and only want what I deserve. I feel that with your support of this 
bill, it would enable me to live without worries of finances and 
diminish the concerns of my family.''
  That is what this legislation is all about--simply giving seniors 
what they deserve.
  While this is a step in the right direction, seniors deserve more--
and we could and should be doing more--much more.
  During Committee deliberations on this legislation last night, an 
amendment was offered to restore some of the benefits that are reduced 
due to the Government Pension Offset. This provision would have made 
widow's benefits more fair, and helped reduce the high rates of poverty 
that especially face elderly women.
  Unfortunately, the Chairman passed on this opportunity--even though 
the Social Security Administration stated that the costs of adding this 
provision would be negligible.
  Mr. Speaker, removing the earnings limit is progress--but is this all 
that we are going to do for seniors this year?
  Are we going to address other inequities in the Social Security 
system--like the government pension offset, windfall reductions, duel 
entitlement provisions--or even the long-term solvency of the program?
  Will we finally reauthorize the Older American Act?
  Will we enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit?
  Our senior citizens deserve more--much more. Passing this bill is the 
very least we can do. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation--and invite you to join me in efforts to ensure retirement 
security for all older Americans.

[[Page 1821]]


  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5, the 
``Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.''
  For years my constituents have raised concerns about unfair Social 
Security earnings limit. Finally, the House is going to eliminate this 
unfair penalty.
  Whenever a working retiree earns more than $17,000 per year, they 
lose $1 of Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above the 
limit. We penalize senior citizens who want to continue to participate 
in the work force.
  There are 800,000 senior citizens who lose part or all of the Social 
Security benefits they've worked hard for because they earn ``too 
much'' money in retirement.
  The Social Security earnings limit was created during the Great 
Depression and it punishes senior citizens for their work ethic and 
desire to be self-reliant in their ``golden years.''
  Today unemployment is at an all-time low. The experience and skills 
developed by older workers during a lifetime in the workplace are being 
recognized and are in demand.
  Social Security recipients are entitled to their benefits because 
they earned them during a lifetime of hard work. The government should 
not take those benefits away because individuals want to work. That's 
why I strongly support the passage of H.R. 5 today.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the 
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5). The Social Security 
earnings limit discourages those on retirement from remaining in the 
work force and contributing to the country's economic growth. Due to 
the longer life-spans and the improved quality of health among 
retirees, the advent of an aging society, and decreasing work force 
growth numbers, it is imperative that we explore better ways to tap the 
vauable and often underutilized resources of older Americans.
  Due to the retirement earnings test, Social Security beneficiaries 
who have attained the normal retirement age (presently age 65) have 
their benefits reduced by $1 for every $3 that they earn in excess of 
$17,000. Similarly, Social Security beneficiaries between age 62 and 
the normal retirement age have their benefits reduced by $1 for every 
$2 that they earn in excess of $10,800. Although both groups of 
beneficiaries receive benefit increases once they stop working in order 
to compensate for reductions while they were working, there are a 
number of good reasons to support repealing the earnings test for 
beneficiaries who have reached the normal retirement age.
  Repealing the retirement earnings test will allow thousands of Social 
Security recipients to work without a reduction in their benefits. The 
Social Security Administration estimates that, in 1999, 793,000 
beneficiaries aged 65 through 69 had some or all of their benefits 
withheld because of the retirement earnings test.
  Repealing the retirement earnings test may create positive work 
incentives. Because many Social Security beneficiaries are unaware that 
the benefit reductions they experience when they are working are offset 
by benefit increases once they stop working, they may perceive the 
retirement earnings test as a tax. In response, they may reduce the 
number of hours they work or they may decide to leave the labor force 
altogether.
  The most recent economic research indicates that repealing the 
retirement earnings test for beneficiaries between the normal 
retirement age and age 69 may encourage work. In a 1998 study, Leora 
Friedberg, an economist at the University of California, San Diego, 
found that repealing the retirement earnings test for those 
beneficiaries would increase their labor supply by about five percent.
  Repealing the retirement earnings test will not affect Social 
Security's finances over the long run. Repealing the RET for 
beneficiaries who have reached the normal retirement age would not 
change (for better or for worse) Social Security's currently projected 
long-range financing shortfall. Repealing the retirement earnings test 
for beneficiaries above the normal retirement age has a significant 
short-run cost ($22.7 billion over the next 10 years), but, over the 
long run, that cost is offset by lower benefit payments.
  Again, under current law, workers who have their benefits reduced due 
to the retirement earnings test receive an actuarial adjustment that 
increases their benefits once they stop working. Repealing the 
retirement earnings test would mean that such workers would no longer 
receive that actuarial adjustment and that benefit payments would be 
lower.
  Repealing the retirement earnings test will make the Social Security 
program easier and less expensive to administer. The Social Security 
Administration estimates that the cost of administering the earnings 
test in 1999 ranged from $100 to $150 million.
  Since those costs include administering the earnings test for workers 
between age 62 and the normal retirement age, repealing the retirement 
earnings test for workers above the normal retirement age would save 
less than that amount.)
  In addition, Social Security Administration estimates that it 
overpaid $787 million in benefits due to the retirement earnings test 
in 1997. Payments to beneficiaries aged 65 through 69 accounted for 63 
percent of retirement earnings test related overpayments in 1998.
  If older Americans have the capacity to earn more money without 
penalty, there will be a greater incentive for them to work. Working 
older Americans contribute additional money to the economy and provide 
more revenue for the treasury. Furthermore, with advances in medical 
technology older Americans will remain healthy longer and live longer 
productive lives.
  I join with my Democratic colleagues and strongly support eliminating 
the retirement earnings test that penalizes and discourages workers age 
65 through 69 from remaining in the workforce and contributing to our 
prosperous economy.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, later today, the House of 
Representatives will pass H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work 
Act. This Act will eliminate the current tax law which penalizes senior 
citizens between 65-69 who continue to work. The Senior Citizens 
Earnings Test taxes senior citizens up to 33 percent of a senior's 
Social Security benefits.
  One of the most egregious elements of our tax code is the continued 
over-taxing of American senior citizens who want to continue working. 
Repealing this tax on working seniors was the first bill I cosponsored 
when I was sworn into office in 1995, and, finally, I think we see 
light at the end of this tunnel. I would like to thank Speaker Hastert 
for his leadership on this issue for more than a decade.
  This Social Security Earnings Test has two adverse effects: it 
discourages seniors from working and for those who do work, it takes 
away a portion of the Social Security benefits they have earned. With 
today's labor shortage, this policy is greatly outdated and needs 
changing.
  The Senior Citizens earnings tax penalty takes $1 of working seniors' 
Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over a federal imposed 
income limit. Seniors earning more than $17,000 are subject to the 
earnings tax. In 1999 there were over 4 million working senior 
citizens, at least 800,000 of them lost some of their Social Security 
benefits because of the earnings test. By repealing this tax penalty, 
the ten year benefit to senior citizens would be about $23 billion. 
Seniors can use this extra money for helping with their grandchildren's 
education, a trip to visit their family or other loved ones, a car, 
medical expenses, and prescription drugs.
  Republicans have ended 40 years of raiding the Social Security Trust 
Fund to fund pet projects by tax and spend politicians. Repealing this 
seniors' tax builds on that commitment to senior citizens by making 
sure they get the benefits they have worked for, even if they choose to 
continue working. In Florida, over 80,000 seniors could be able to take 
advantage of this tax fairness package. This bill ensure that they get 
the money they have earned as well as the Social Security benefits they 
deserve.
  A similar bill introduced in 1998 as part of the plan to abolish the 
Social Security earnings limit only received support from 19 House 
Democrats. This year the President has indicated his willingness to 
sign such a bill, but he did not include it in his recently submitted 
FY 2001 budget. The measure enjoys support from such groups as AARP, 
United Seniors Association, and the 60 Plus Association. Let's do the 
right thing and pass this bill.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, millions of older Americans are 
penalized every year simply because they set their alarm clocks to get 
up early in the morning, get dressed and head off to work. But unlike 
the rest of us who pull into rush hour traffic in the morning, that 65 
year old in the car next to yours is paying the government a fee to go 
to work that day. That fee is called the Social Security Earnings 
Limitation.
  My colleagues, today we can eliminate that fee and undo that 
injustice. Today we can begin to give America's senior citizens equal 
treatment under the nation's tax laws. Today we can guarantee that 
those senior Americans who want to continue to work--and can continue 
to work--today we can guarantee that they won't be penalized for making 
that contribution to their families, to their communities and to 
society in general.
  By allowing older Americans the opportunity to stay in the workforce 
without penalty, we are allowing them to supplement their incomes, we 
are helping them to stay healthier, and we are giving them the 
opportunity to add

[[Page 1822]]

to their later retirement. This is especially important as we see more 
and more Americans living into the eighties, their nineties and even 
into their hundreds.
  So I encourage my colleagues today to give their older neighbors a 
fair break. Vote for the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that another popular tax 
relief proposal, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, is coming up 
for a vote today. First, let me point out that the debate over H.R. 5 
should contain no rhetoric that this repeal of the Social Security 
earnings limit will break the bank. The Social Security actuaries have 
confirmed that repeal of the earnings limit maintains the current 
projected solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The repeal of the Social Security earnings limit for individuals who 
have attained the full retirement age has been a very high priority of 
mine and for my Republican colleagues elected to the House in 1986. 
Although we were able a few years ago to secure a gradual increase in 
the earnings limit for seniors who were 65 to 69 years old, the 
complete repeal of the earnings limit for this group is a big victory. 
I am pleased that so many senior citizens' groups have joined us in 
this fight, and I welcome President Clinton's announced support for 
this repeal as well.
  The Social Security earnings limit is a relic of the Great Depression 
when it was necessary to entice older workers to leave the work force, 
making more jobs available to younger workers. Today, many businesses 
and communities face a serious worker shortage. My congressional 
district has an especially low rate of unemployment now: a meager 1.6 
percent. This means that opportunities for older workers abound, 
providing earning potential and related benefits to the seniors willing 
and physically able to meet the challenge. Further, I am pleased that 
H.R. 5 provides immediate relief by covering income earned after 
December 31, 1999.
  For those in the 10th Congressional District and elsewhere who do not 
know me well, I am proud to report that I am a working senior. Too old 
now to benefit from this change in the tax code, I nevertheless enjoy a 
higher quality of life--and perhaps better health--which comes with 
being more active. In addition, I feel that my many years of experience 
add to my job performance as a long work history does for so many 
seniors.
  Again, let me say that I appreciate the support of our colleagues in 
getting this repeal bill before the House today. Our Nation's seniors 
deserve this extra incentive to remain productive in their later years 
and our work force needs them.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. I have long supported repeal of 
this onerous, burdensome rule on this nation's working seniors.
  The earnings limit penalty requires seniors age 65 to 69 who earn 
over $17,000 to forfeit 33% of their Social Security benefits. Seniors 
with golden parachutes or extensive investments do not face such a 
penalty . . . only those who get up every morning, head off to work, 
and make valuable contributions to our labor force. This is unfair.
  As a relic of the Great Depression, Congress is overdue to reform 
this antiquated law. The earnings limit is a great disincentive to 
seniors to remain in the workforce if they so choose. In reality, it is 
the imposition of a high marginal tax rate on productive seniors in the 
workforce, who are also paying federal and state income taxes, and 
Social Security payroll taxes.
  I'm pleased to see this legislation come to the floor in a bipartisan 
fashion. I'm pleased the President has indicated he will sign it. I 
look forward to lifting this burden from working seniors.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering very important 
legislation which will eliminate one of the most unfair tax burdens 
ever placed on Americans and give our senior citizens the freedom to 
work.
  The high tax rate on the earnings of older Americans has created a 
significant roadblock at a time when workforce participation by these 
individuals is extremely important to the continuing growth of the U.S. 
economy. Economists and Federal Reserve Board officials, including 
Chairman Alan Greenspan, have expressed concern that the shrinking pool 
of available workers cannot satisfy the surging quantity of goods and 
services demanded by the American people and people around the world.
  I have heard a number of stories, some during a hearing I held as 
Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee for the Education & Workforce 
Committee, and others more recently during town hall meetings I held 
last week in West Michigan. In each case the message was the same: the 
current system discourages older Americans from re-entering or 
continuing in the workforce. We need to keep these individuals in the 
workforce and the repeal of the earnings limit will be an essential 
step in encouraging their participation.
  Mr. Speaker, I should also note that as seniors and others enter the 
workforce, there is one thing they do not know--the true costs of 
Social Security and Medicare. Currently, an employee's W-2 lists his or 
hers withholdings for Social Security and Medicare. What the employees 
don't know, is how much their employer also pays for these programs. 
This is another unfairness we need to correct by passing the Right To 
Know National Payroll Act, which would require the employers share of 
Social Security and Medicare taxes to be disclosed on each employee's 
annual W-2. American workers have a right to know the true costs of 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, we are witnessing the best of 
Congress as Members of different ideologies and political parties come 
together for the benefit of the American people.
  Today, the House of Representatives will pass the Senior Citizens 
Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5) which will repeal the Depression-era 
earnings limit imposed on Social Security recipients between the ages 
of 65 and 69 who decide to supplement their retirement income by 
working. Under current law, seniors who work lose $1 of their Social 
Security benefits for every $3 they earn outside earned income beyond 
$17,000 a year.
  In the real world, this outdated law has adversely affected several 
thousand of my constituents in Queens and the Bronx. A number of 
seniors in my district have gotten part-time jobs to supplement their 
income so as to improve their quality of life, offset some of their 
expenses such as the high costs of their prescription drugs and remain 
active.
  Unfortunately, once many of these seniors recognize how much they are 
losing in their Social Security benefits by working, they quit their 
jobs.
  I believe it is both foolish and counterproductive to punish working 
people.
  This legislation will assist people like Mr. Christopher Christie, a 
constituent of mine from the Bronx, New York. He was punished by the 
earning limit. After he retired, he spent several weeks working in a 
small business she operated and as a doorman on Park Avenue. He saw his 
Social Security check garnished monthly because of his outside jobs.
  Therefore, I am pleased that the House is debating this legislation 
to repeal the earnings limit and allow our seniors the freedom to work 
and attain some financial independence.
  This bill represents a solid first step in improving the quality of 
life of America's seniors. I hope that Congress will now address the 
other issues of importance to seniors, such as the inclusion of 
prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bill H.R. 5, The 
Senior Citizens Freedom to Work act.
  Under current law, seniors who claim Social Security benefits before 
they reach 69 are subject to a reduction in benefits if they continue 
to work. For seniors 65 to 69, benefits are reduced by $1 for every $3 
that their earnings exceed the limit, which was $17,000 in 2000, and 
which rises to $30,000 in 2002 and is indexed after that. This bill 
would repeal these limits entirely, effective immediately.
  The earnings limit originated in the 1930's and has remained in 
effect because Congress never changed it, despite the vast changes in 
the economy and the lives of senior citizens that have taken place in 
the last 60 years.
  Nearly 50,000 senior citizens in Texas are currently being penalized 
for working, a prospect that does not bode well for the economic 
circumstances for those in the twilight of their lives. We should not 
punish senior citizens for participating in the workforce; we should 
reward that. People remain healthy and vigorous much longer than they 
did in the 1930's.
  It makes sense to repeal this obsolete and punitive limit. I have 
supported raising the limit in past years and support repealing it now. 
Today's legislation is important to consider as part of a broader plan 
to use the surplus to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare 
and pay down the debt.
  Today, we can take the first step towards strengthening retirement 
security for all seniors. But this step was just the very beginning of 
what we must do in order to put Social Security on a firm financial 
footing well into the 21st century. I hope the House of 
Representatives, which showed such passion today when talking about 
removing the earnings limit will show the same kind of passion over the 
next few months as we debate the proper use of the surplus. We must use 
the budget surplus to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and stringent 
support of H.R. 5, the

[[Page 1823]]

Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. Current law limits the income of 
retirees ages 65 to 69 to $17,000. Social Security benefits are reduced 
one dollar for every three dollars earned above $17,000. Social 
Security Administration statistics show that nearly ``690,000 
beneficiaries between 65 and 69 lose some or all of their benefits 
because of excess earnings resulting from their work.'' This bill, 
which repeals the earnings limits imposed under Social Security on our 
nation's working senior citizens, is a welcomed measure which will 
allow our seniors to continue to contribute to our growing economy.
  The earnings limit is an outdated relic of the depression era Social 
Security program. It was instituted based on a policy that addressed a 
problem of that time; however, times have changed. Then, our nation was 
worried about moving seniors out of the work force to make room for the 
growing number of younger workers. Now, labor statistics indicate that 
as our nation's population ages, there will be a shortage of workers 
available to meet our future labor needs. H.R. 5 is needed to provide 
incentive to seniors to help supplement the nation's future need for 
workers.
  Past Social Security policy overlooked the valuable assets that 
senior citizens bring to our nation's workforce. Seniors have a wealth 
of wisdom and experience to offer the workforce. Most enjoy bestowing 
the benefit of their experience and wisdom on younger workers and 
generally offer their knowledge for reasons other than the sheer 
pursuit of wealth. Seniors tend to exemplify the attributes of hard-
work, punctuality and patience. In this time of instant gratification, 
I can think of no better teachers of the value of a work ethic which 
developed over time can be passed on to future generations. Seniors 
have much to offer and this bill will make it easier for the workforce 
to receive the benefit of their wisdom and experience.
  Seniors have worked long and hard to earn and they should not be 
deprived of the fruits of their labor. Today, seniors are living longer 
and healthier lives and they are more fit and willing than ever to 
contribute to our nation's workforce. Many view working as a necessary 
part of their well-being and quality of life. As a society we should 
not handicap the lifestyle of those who choose to work into their 
silver years. H.R. 5 reconciles past policy that punished seniors by 
forcing them to sit on the sidelines of the workforce.
  There are also many seniors who have no choice but to work. 
Skyrocketing, pharmaceutical prices have left seniors struggling to 
meet the financial burden of much needed medicine. Every year we listen 
to the stories of seniors who die in their home due to their inability 
to meet the heating or air-conditioning costs. How can we continue to 
penalize them for their necessary efforts to meet those costs?
  Unfortunately, many of the seniors who need to work most are our 
nation's women, who outlive their male spouse 75% of the time. Indeed, 
``103,000 dependent and spousal beneficiaries are affected by the 
limit.'' Widowed women often are forced to reenter the work force in 
order to meet their basic needs. They should not be forced to lose some 
or all of their retirement benefits, while striving to secure the 
simple necessities of living.
  While I support and applaud this effort on behalf of our nation's 
seniors, I would be remiss not to mention the continued problem facing 
Social Security. Ensuring the future solvency of the Social Security 
Trust Fund is a problem this Congress still must address. It is my hope 
that H.R. 5, is simply a stepping stone along the path of addressing a 
problem that is not going to go away. I urge the leadership of this 
House to bring forth legislation that seeks to make the tough decisions 
necessary to address the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund 
before we are faced with even tougher more painful decisions.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his long commitment to 
repealing the punitive tax on seniors. One of the first bills I 
sponsored way back in 1989, during my first year in Congress, was Denny 
Hastert's ``Older Americans' Freedom to Work Act.'' I'm delighted that 
we are finally moving forward with this historic legislation. It is 
long overdue.
  I recently pointed out, while arguing for repeal of the marriage 
penalty tax, that in America you should not be discriminated against by 
our tax code solely because of your status. We have civil rights laws 
in America to make sure that each of us is protected against unfair 
treatment by our government. Yet, just as the marriage penalty 
discriminates against people who are married, the earnings test 
discriminates against people over 65 who choose to stay productive.
  This costly and regressive tax forces many seniors from the job 
market. Whereas 50 years ago 47% of men over 65 were employed in the 
labor force, today it is only 16.5%.
  A senior who chooses to work after the retirement age of 65 faces a 
tax burden that amounts to government confiscation. A senior who 
chooses to work loses $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 in 
wages and salaries he or she earns over $17,000. Yet $17,000 is close 
to the official U.S. government poverty level for working families. 
When one adds the burdens of income and payroll taxes, this amounts to 
a marginal tax rate on working seniors as high as 80%--higher than the 
rate for billionaires.
  The government should not penalize working seniors by canceling their 
Social Security benefits. These benefits are not welfare; they have 
been earned over a lifetime of hard work.
  Repeal of the earnings test is also another important step toward 
ensuring that Social Security is always there for seniors. I am hopeful 
we can bring the same bipartisan support we have today to the upcoming 
debate on supplementing Social Security benefits through personal 
retirement accounts.
  The Clinton-Gore administration has had eight years to repeal this 
discriminatory burden on seniors. The Democratic Congress has 40 years 
to do it. Not only did they fail to do so, they raised taxes on working 
seniors. The 1993 Clinton tax increase included a 70% increase in 
income taxes on Social Security benefits, for seniors earning as little 
as $34,000.
  In 1996, for the first time ever, the new Republican majority in 
Congress provided relief to seniors by reducing the Social Security 
earnings penalty. The new law more than doubled the amount a senior 
citizen could earn without losing his or her Social Security benefits, 
from $11,280 to $30,000 in 2002. This change has already had a positive 
effect: the number of senior citizens choosing to remain in the labor 
force has increased by 7%. Today's long-overdue step--passage of H.R. 5 
to completely repeal the unfair earnings test--finally finishes the job 
Congress started in 1996, and that Speaker Hastert started more than a 
decade ago.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with members 
of Congress who have introduced bills that advocate comprehensive 
reform of Social Security. We understand the immensity of the challenge 
facing the country as baby boomers retire, how demographics result in a 
huge responsibility for future generations, and the importance of 
preparing Social Security for the future. You will find repeal in the 
Social Security Solvency Act for 2000, which I introduced in November. 
Bills that I introduced this year and last year, including the Social 
Security Solvency Act for 2000, included elimination of the earnings 
limit, plus another provision that I consider to be the counterbalance 
to the earnings test--accelerating the increase in the ``delayed 
retirement credit'' or DRC.
  If a worker decides to continue working after 65 and defer his 
monthly benefit, the DRC increases the size of his monthly check he 
will ultimately receive from Social Security. A worker who turns 65 
this year will see his benefits increase 6 percent for every year he 
defers his benefit. Current law allows a worker to delay retirement for 
up to five years, working until he reaches 70. If that retiree's 
monthly benefit was $1,000 when he turned 65, it will be $1,300 if he 
puts off receiving a Social Security check until he's 70--that's an 
extra $3,600 a year. However, if that worker enjoys an average length 
of retirement, this delay puts him at a disadvantage. He should be 
receiving an extra $4,800 a year, not $3,600.
  Under current law, the DRC is set to rise to 8 percent in 2008. This 
is the amount that Social Security considers to be ``actuarially 
sound.'' That means that a retiree who delays receiving his benefit is 
getting proper compensation in the future for the money he does not get 
today. As we eliminate the earnings limit, it is reasonable to include 
an increase in the DRC. Retirees deserve a fair deal today--not in 
2008. Now that we are taking away the earnings limit that discourages 
senior citizens from working, we should accelerate the DRC and 
encourage them to ``save'' so they have a higher benefit during the 
years they no longer have outside earnings. The accelerated DRC will 
encourage people to work as long as they choose. The Social Security 
actuaries have examined my proposal to accelerate the DRC, and they say 
it is actuarially sound. It doesn't cost taxpayers or weaken the Social 
Security trust fund.
  There are three reasons to accelerate the DRC:
  1. Fairness--Give workers who choose to delay receiving their Social 
Security benefit an increase that is consistent with actuarial 
assumptions.
  2. Choice--Give senior citizens more options to manage their 
retirement--they choose

[[Page 1824]]

when they retire and when they should apply for benefits.
  3. To Fight Poverty--Give a higher survivor benefit to widows whose 
spouses took benefits based on the DRC.
  When I learned of the Ways and Means markup of H.R. 5, I approached 
Representative Shaw and Representative Archer, and presented my 
amendment to accelerate the DRC. After careful consideration by the 
Social Security subcommittee, I received agreement to add this 
amendment. Gene Sperling called me on the evening of Feb. 28 to tell me 
that the President had agreed to support it, and the minority gave 
their consent on Tuesday.
  This amendment is to too important to be stalled by politics. I will 
continue to fight for its inclusion, and I remain optimistic that I 
will see the DRC acceleration language in the bill that President 
Clinton finally signs into law.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of bringing relief to 
thousands of seniors who are unfairly punished by the Social Security 
earnings penalty. For too many seniors, working after they turn 65 
isn't an option--it is a necessity. They can ill afford a smaller 
Social Security check each month. We should fix this inequity and do 
what is fair and right for our seniors. They deserve nothing less.
  Last week, I met with a group of working seniors in West Haven, 
Connecticut. One was Mary Grabowski. Mary recently retired, but she 
quickly realized she had to continue to work after she turned 65 
because she simply couldn't afford not to. It wasn't a choice. It 
wasn't so she could make a little extra money on the side. It was about 
being able to pay her bills.
  I also listened to the story of Estelle Stuart. Estelle is also a 
recent retiree who came to realize that Social Security simply isn't 
going to be enough for her to get by. In particular, Estelle is forced 
to work in order to pay for the prescription drugs she desperate needs.
  Mary Grabowski, Estelle Stuart, and the thousands of other seniors 
like them who must continue to work after 65, are perfect examples of 
why the earnings penalty is wrong and why we need to end it. I want to 
thank both of them for sharing their story with me.
  Ending the earnings penalty today is a good start. It's important to 
thousands of seniors. But tomorrow, let's get to work and pass a 
responsible plan that will strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and 
provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit. It is a plan that 
honors our seniors and protects our values. We've taken a positive 
first step today. Let's get to work and finish the job.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, the second session of the 106th 
Congress has been off to a quick start passing landmark legislation 
that directly impacts millions of Americans and improves our quality of 
life.
  First, we repealed the Marriage Penalty Tax, and today, we will 
ensure that older men and women still in the workforce will be able to 
keep more of their hard-earned money without losing important Social 
Security benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the golden years for many older 
men and women in America involve all types of activities. More and 
more, older Americans are sharing their lifelong experience in business 
and industry with a new generation of Americans in the workplace. 
Benefiting from tremendous advances in health care and increasing life 
expectancy rates, our older people--the generation of men and women who 
carried our nation through World War II, and beyond--continue to 
contribute to the economic well being of our state and nation.
  While some older men and women are working because they need the 
paycheck to put food on the table, others keep working simply because 
they like what they do and see no reason to stop doing it just because 
they have reached their sixty-fifth birthday.
  Right now, the tax code penalizes older Americans who choose to keep 
working. Over 800,000 seniors today lose part or all of their Social 
Security benefits because of the Social Security ``earnings limit.'' 
Almost 37,000 older men and women in New Jersey alone are hit by this 
unfair penalty.
  The present limit cuts or entirely eliminates Social Security 
benefits for working older men and women whose yearly incomes exceed a 
certain amount. In 2000, working Americans between the ages of 65-69 
will lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 in earnings over 
the limit.
  The Social Security earnings limit was created during the Great 
Depression when jobs were scarce. It was designed to encourage older 
workers to leave the workforce to free up jobs for younger workers. 
What may have been good policy during the worst economic downturn in 
American history is bad policy today during one of the best economic 
cycles with more challenges and opportunities for everyone.
  Our economy is booming and unemployment is at a record low. These 
working older men and women are an important part of that success. They 
should be encouraged to remain a vital part of the work force rather 
than be penalized for their labors. In addition, people today are 
living longer and healthier lives. Soon, millions of baby boomers will 
reach retirement age. If these people wish to remain productive members 
of the workforce long past their sixty-fifth birthday, their 
experiences, industry, and productiveness should be rewarded.
  The Social Security earnings limit penalty is wrong, unfair, and 
should be scrapped. With the President in agreement, and my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle in full support, let's pass ``The Senior 
Citizens Freedom to Work Act'' (H.R. 5), after so many years of 
inaction.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate having 
expired, pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous 
question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair announces that the vote on the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal, if ordered, will immediately follow this vote, and will be a 
5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422, 
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               YEAS--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski

[[Page 1825]]


     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bliley
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cook
     Horn
     Kilpatrick
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Spratt
     Vento
     Waters

                              {time}  1316

  Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the bells on rollcall 27. I 
spoke in support of the bill, H.R. 5, and I would have voted in favor 
of the bill had I been present.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, the Senior Citizens' 
Freedom to Work Act, on which I addressed the House, I was regretfully 
delayed on official business with a visiting delegation from the German 
Bundestag. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________